
Class 

Book 

Copyright!^ 



CGPJRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



The 

Laslie- Willis 
Debate 



SL 



The 

Las lie -Willis 
Debate 

PROCEEDINGS OF JOINT DEBATE HELD AT 

CHERRY GROVE 

Muhlenberg County 
KENTUCKY 

SEPTEMBER 13, 14, 15, 16, 1921 

Between 

REV. TV A. H. LASLIE, A.B, B. D. 

Of the General Baptist Church 

and 

REV. T, D. WILLIS 

Of the Church of Christ 

PRICE $1.25 

Copyrighted, 1922, by Rev. T. A. H. Laslie. 








■i 






Dr,U654507 

FE3-6'22 



"W\ 9 \ 



X 



Proceedings of Joint Debate Held at Cherry Grove Church, in 
Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, on September 13, 14, 15 and 
16, 1921, Between T. D. Willis, of the Church of Christ, and 
T. A. H. Laslie, of the General Baptist Church. 
THE PROPOSITIONS ARE: 

1. The Churches of Christ, one of which I, T. D. Willis, am a member, 
are identical in origin, name, doctrine and practice with the Churches of 
the New Testament. 

Affirmative, T. D. WILLIS. 
Negative, T. A. H. LASLIE. 

2. The General Bapt'st Churches, one of which I, T. A. H. Laslie, am 
a meirber, are identical in origin, name, doctrine and practice with the 
Churches of the New Testament. 

Affirmative, T. A. H. LASLIE. 
Negative, T. D. WILLIS. * 
Moderators. 
For the Church cf Christ: 

EVANGELIST J. L. HINES, Monticello, Kentucky. 
For the General Baptist Church: 

REV. W. U. JONES, Portland, Tennessee. 

(Evangelist Hines.) Beloved, the t'me has arrived now for the investi- 
gation of the subject that has been assigned by the debatants. The rules 
governing this debate are laid down in Hedge's Logic, Rules 1 to 7. 

Each debatant will have thirty minutes in which to discuss the proposi- 
tion. The f'rst propositicn to be discussed is, "The Churches of Christ, one 
of which I, T. D. Wilis, am a member, are identical in origin, name, doctrine 
and practice with the Churches of the New Testament." That is the first 
proposition to be discussed today and tomorrow. T. D. Willis affirms; 
T. A. H. Laslie denies. Brother Willis now has the floor for thirty minutes. 

(Brother Willis.) Brother moderators, ladies and gentlemen: It is a 
great pleasure for me to appear before you in defense of the proposition 
that has just been read. I want to go on record as being in favor of debates; 
that is, if they are conducted in the right spirit, in the spirit of Christ. I want 
to go a little further and say I am opposed to wrangling. That character of 
debate is condemned in the New Testament. 

I have had seme little experience in public debate, and in the introduc- 
tory I have always cailed upon the moderators. If at any time in the heat 
of debate I misrepresent my opponent or his people I want you to call me. 
We do not have to misrepresent our opponent or his people in defense of 
the proposition we have before you. Neither do we have to misrepresent 
him or his people in opposing and refuting the proposition that he affirms. 



So I am here to meet my opponent fairly and squarely on the issue. I, 
mean to treat him with all due Christian courtesy, and I will expect the same 
treatment in turn. 

I have agreed to be governed by the rules laid down in Hedge's Logic, 
and I shall comply with these rules strictly. Now, the first rule requires me 
to define the terms of my proposition so clearly that there need be no mis- 
understanding respecting them. So I shall proceed to define the terms of 
my proposition: "The Churches of Christ, one of which I, T. D. Willis, am a 
member are identical in origin, name, doctrine and practice with the Churches 
of the New Testament." The first term I shall define is "Churches of 
Christ." I have used this term in the plural in a local sense as used by 
Paul in Rom. 16:16, "The Churches of Christ salute you." We understand 
the term "church" to mean a calling out; eccesia, a calling out, a separation 
from the world. A body of baptized believers made such under the great 
commission— Matt. 28:18-19— a body of baptized believers of which Jseus 
Christ is the head; Col. 1:18; many members, yet one body; 1st Cor. 12:18. 
I mean by the use of the term "member," I mean to belong to a church of 
that name. I have here to introduce, when necessary, the church record of 
the church of which I am a member, located at Shrewsberry, Kentucky. In 
addition to this I have church records of several churches located in several 
counties, namely, in Hardin, in Grayson, in Butler, in Ohio and in Muhlenberg 
counties. With these records I can identify myself, and hence will clearly 
demonstrate the fact that I belong to one of the Churches of Christ, of which 
I read in the proposition. I mean by the term, identica", the same; not dif- 
ferent. Matt. 16:18. We belong to the same identical church that was 
established by Christ and His apostles. Jesus said, "This is My church." 
Matt. 16:18. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." I 
mean by the term "origin" the first beginning. Heb. 12 :23. I mean by name 
the title by which we are known as a church; Rom. 16:16. The title by which 
we are known as individuals; Acts 11:26. The disciples are called Christians 
first at Antioc,h. I mean by the use of the term "doctrine," teaching; Matt. 
7:28. .1 mean by the use of the term "practice," repeating action, such as 
singing, praying, communion, convening, a prayerful, Godly life. I mean 
by the use of the term "New Testament" the twenty-seven books, beginning 
with Matthew and closing with the "Amen" in Revelations; I mean the en- 
forced will of Jesus Christ; Heb. 9:17. 

So I have before you the definitions of the terms of my proposition. 
Now we read in the New Testament that this institution is cailed the church; 
Matt. 16:18; Christ used the term first Himself. We read in 1st. Cor. 3:9, 
where Paul calls it "building;" "Ye are God's building; ye are God's hus- 
bandry." We read in 1st Peter 2:5 where it is known as a temple, a spiritual 
house in which to offer spiritual sacrifices. We read in 1st Tim. 3:15 where 
Paul calls it the house of God, a church of the living God. He is instructing 
his son Timothy how he should behave himself in the house of God. We 



read in Rev. 1:9 where John, who wrote the Book of Revelations, says to 
the angel, "I am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the 
kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ." 

Now, as I said in the definition, the term "Church of Christ" simply 
means a called-out people from the world, and that is the reason we use 
the term. The term "house" refers to the family feature. The term "king- 
dom" refers to the governmental feature. Jesus Christ is the king. The New 
Testament is law and it sufficeth. The churches of the kingdom have no 
right to pervert and no right to add to or take from the divine revelation. 
We have a chart I want to call your attention to which shows the foundation 
upon which this great spiritual temple is builded. Now listen, will you? 
Second Tim., 2:19, Paul says, "The foundation of God standeth sure, having 
this seal. The Lord knoweth them that are His." The foundation of God 
is a sure foundation. The foundation upon which this great spiritual temple 
rests is a sure, is a solid foundation. It is a rock. It is builded on a rock. 
Listen again, 1st Cor. 3:11, Paul says, "For other foundations can no man 
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Again, Eph. 2:20, Paul declares 
with the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner 
stone, is the foundation of the church. The kingdom is builded on a founda- 
tion, though the foundafon is sure. Listen again, Psalms 127:1, the psalmist 
refers to this building. Again, Zech. 1:16, he refers to this building that is 
to be built in Jerusalem or in Zion; again, Eph. 2:20, the building is to be 
erected on this foundation; 1st Pet. 2:5, and this great spiritual house is 
composed of lively (or living) stones compacted or joined together constitut- 
ing a great spiritual house in which ye shall offer up spiritual sacrifices. 
Again, Christ is a corner stone; Psalms 118:22; the apostles and prophets — 
Jesus Christ the chief corner stone ,is the foundation. Before the foundation 
was laid it was tried — a tried stone. Jesus Christ was tried in His tempta- 
tion, Matt. 4; He was tried in His mock trial. Matt. 26, and in His death. 
So we have the chief corner stone thoroughly tested in His temptation and 
in His death and His resurrection. So we have a sure stone and a chief 
corner stone to go into that foundation. Listen again, will you ? The apostles 
are referred to as the pillars that go into that foundation. Matt. 10:17 gives 
an account of the trial. The pillars that go into this foundation were tried 
or tested before the foundation was laid. There were twelve pillars. In 
Matt. 10 we have in connection with Christ just twelve men called apostles. 
Judas was one of the twelve (he was a bad pillar). Read John 13:27. And 
the devil entered into him and he betrayed the Son of God for thirty pieces 
of silver. He betrayed innocent blood. Read Acts 1:25, we find another 
apostle in the person of Matthias. So we have twelve sound pillars to bq 
laid in Jerusalem in Zion, the place that the prophet said it should be laid. 
Read Isa. 28:16, we have this statement: The prophet says, "Behold, I lay 
in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a 
sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste." Remember, elder, 
this foundation ,this tried stone, was laid in Zion (not a church), laid in 

3 



Zion and Zion is Jerusalem. Here is an issue — the foundation, the tried 
stone — the twelve apostles constitute this foundation and it was laid in Zion 
in Jerusalem; not so on the mountain; not in Cesarea Phillippi; not in Galilee; 
not at the ascension cf the Lord Jesus Christ, but in Zion. Aga'n, the 
apostles in Zion, Jerusalem, Acts 2:14, at the right place and at the right 
time they were first, and in the church first; 1st Cor. 12:28. Bear in mind 
that they were put in the foundation; they were put in the sub-structuro 
and not in the super-structure, but were put in the foundation; Eph. 2:20. 
The apostles were first put in the foundation upon which the church of Jesus 
Christ, this great spiritual building, was erected. All right. John 7:39, we 
learn that the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus Christ was not 
yet glorified. We learn in Acts 2 that the Holy Spirit came; the power came, 
the k*ngdom came, and hence at that time Christ had been exhalted or was in 
heaven seated on the right hand of God. He was King of Kings and Lord of 
Lords, the Great High Priest. You remember in Matthew 16:18 where Christ 
says, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I wi.l build my church, and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it." In Acts 2 we find the first key. In Acts 
16:19 He says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatso- 
ever thou shalt loose on earth shail be loosed in heaven." Note the language. 
Christ says, "I wi'.l build My church" (in the future; future tense); "I will 
build My church." Hence, we find Him build"ng, still in the future. The 
Holy Spirit had not yet come, because Jesus Christ was not yet glorified. In 
Acts 2 we find the apostle Peter opened the door of the Church of Jesus 
Christ, and it is a wide open doer, and it stands open today, and thank the 
Lord, no man has the power or authority to open and no man has the power 
to shut. On that day the gospel was preached in all its fullness, and for the 
first time in the history of the world the fundamental principles were de- 
clared that Jesus Christ was the Son of the Living God. He died, according 
to the Scriptures; He was buried, rose again, according to the Scriptures, and 
this was the first time in the history of the world that these fundamental 
facts were declared. In the 16th chapter of Matt. Jesus Christ says again 
(tell no man), "I am the Christ," but after Pentecost that is the very identical 
thing that is to be told, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and He died 
to redeem the world. Three thousand heard the gospel with the power to 
save the souls of men; Rom. 1:16; and hence were added to them, that cne 
hundred and twenty, the nucleus that constituted the church in Jerusalem, 
in Zion, waiting for the prom'sed power — the three thousand souls were 
added to them, and hence they were added daily. The Lord added to the 
church daily such as were being saved. Acts 2:47. 

Now then, I want to call your attention to the question of the church 
again. The church is in ecclesia, called out. The ecclesia of Acts 19:32 was 
a church, but not a church of God or Christ. Bear that in mind. Not every 
one called out is the Church of Christ. (The best people are caled out, but 
not the Church of Christ; nor to be called out is a Church of Christ.) Some- 



tiires the ecclesia is limited to the church in a local sense. The church at 
Jerusalem, Acts 8:1; at Antioch, Acts 11:26; 1st Cor. 16:19; Gal. 1; Matt. 
16:18; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 12:23; church and kingdom, the church is sometimes 
spoken of as a kingdom, Matt. 16:19, "I will give unto thee the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven," words used by the Savior Himself. Again it is some- 
times spoken of as a kingdom, Matt. 16:19; and Col. 1:18; Romans 14:17; 
Rev. 1:9. In these Scriptures kingdom is just synonymous with church. In 
Col. 1:13 we learn that they were being translated into the kingdom or into 
the church when established. The church or kingdom was in promise, Gen. 
12:13; Exo. 12:15-16 there is reference made to this prom'se, and he said 
the promised seed was Christ. It is known in prophecy, Dan. 2:44; Ma'tt. 
10:7; Luke 10:9. Hence it is established, fixed firm'.y, Acts 2. The apostles 
began their work preaching repentance and remission of sins; Luke 24:47. 
Three thousand were added. "The Lord added daily to the church such as 
should be saved." Acts 2:47. Jesus Christ is the head of the church, Gel. 
1:18, which is not made head until He ascended to the Father; until He is 
seated on the right hand of God. Eph. 1:22-23, Christ was made priest. You 
ask the question, when? Not that, elder. Christ was made priest — not on 
earth. He did not become High Priest until he entered heaven by His own 
blood and was seated on the right hand of the Father. Then He became our 
great H'gh Priest; then He became King of Kings and L:rd of Lords. "Thou 
art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," Psa. 110:4; "And He 
shall be a priest upon His throne;" Zech. 6:13. David aid, "The Lord's throne 
is in heaven;" Psa. 11:4. Paul said, "If He were on earth He should not be 
a priest;" Heb. 8:4. Christ is High Priest of the Church of God. He was 
not made priest on earth; He was made priest on His throne in heaven. The 
Lord's throne is David's throne, and David's thrcne is in heaven; therefore, 
the Lord is seated on David's throne and He became High Priest when He 
ascended to heaven and was seated on the throne. Jesus Christ is mediator; 
He is med'ator of the new covenant; Heb. 12:22-24. But He was not made 
mediator until He offered Himself without spot to God; Heb. 9:14-16; the 
church a house, a spiritual house; let Pet. 2:5; the spirit is not given until 
Jesus is glorified; John 7:39; "But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until 
ye V>e endued with power from on high." Luke 24:49. "And when the day 
of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." 
The spirit was from God. Acts 2:1. If the church was establihed before the 
death of Christ it was without foundation; it was without head; it was 
without an high priest; it was without a mediator; it was without the 
Holy Spirit. 

Now, we want to continue the argument along this line. If it was set 
up before Jesus arose from the dead and ascended from earth to heaven, is 
a church without the priesthood? Heb. 4; Heb. 8:4; if it was set up before the 
law was abolished it was unveiled; 2nd Cor. 3:13-14; if it was set up before 
the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified it was a body irreconcf.ed to God; Rom. 
5:10; "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the 



death of His Son;" if it was set up before Christ was ascended and made 
priest it was absolutely a church without the Christ, and hence without 
reconciliation. Heb. 2:17, "Wherefore, in all things it behooved him to be 
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high 
priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of 
the people." If it was set up or established before the crucifixion or resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ it was established before repentance and the remis- 
sion of sins. Luke 24:43; if it was set up before the crucifixion of the Lord 
Jeus Christ it was established before Jesus was crowned King of Kings and 
Lord of Lords; Heb. 2:9; Psa. 24:7-10; Rev. 14:14-17; 1st Tim. 1:14-15. If it 
was established before the resurrection of Jesus Christ there was not a singie 
believer of the revelation in it. Luke 24:10, "It was Mary Magdalene and 
Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with 
them, which told these things to the apostles. And their words seemed to 
them as idle tales, and they believed them not." He took the first out of 
the way, Heb. 10:8. If the church was estab.ished before he took the first 
cut of the way it was established within the vail; Heb. 10:9, "Then, said he, 
lo, I come to do thy will, God. He taketh away the first that he may 
establish the second. By the which we are sanctified through the offering 
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." In Rom. 6 we have such express'ons 
as this: Buried with Christ by baptism into death, and buried with Him 

in baptism 

(Moderator Hines.) Your time is up. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brethren and Moderators and Respected Audience: I am 
brought to stand before you this morning as the negative of this proposition; 
but before I take the matter up I have a word of explanation that I want to 
make, and it can go in the notes if you want it to, but it has nothing to do 
with the subject whatever. I started my trunk having my books and notes 
in it in the automobile. It had the books in it and it was connected with this 
funeral and for some reason it has not got here yet. I do not know what 
the cause is at all. The result is I haven't even my manuscript. The truck 
is connected with this funeral that is to be carried on this evening and for 
some cause is has not made connection with me, but, however, I am no'ti 
making that as any excuse. I am not expected this morning to establish 
anything. It is my business to appear before you as the negative of the 
proposition that has just been read in your hearing, and I accord heartily 
with the speaker that has gone before me in that he said he wants this debate 
to go on with a Christian-like spirit and in a way that will be edifying to the 
people. I have never had any discussion in my life that did not go on, on 
my part especially, with that kind of spirit, and I will not conduct a discus- 
sion in any other way — with malice towards none with charity for all; to 
defend the right as God gives us to see the right, I am before you. I am 
not here to make broad assertions at all, but I am here to state and prove 
facts. The gentleman is on the proving side now, and I am here to adhere 

6 



strictly to the laws of argument; to the laws of discussion. A multitude of 
Scriptures introduced, for the sake of taking time to turn and read them, 
demands no attention whatever. It is my business to answer every argument 
that is presented, and every argument presented will be answered. Every 
Scripture upon which an argument is made will be answered, every one. 
But I shall not try to destroy Brother Willis' time by repeating a score or a 
score and a half passages of Scripture for him to turn to and read them and 
make no argument on them. I shall not treat him that way. During his 
thirty minutes' speech he introduced passage after passage, made assertion 
and then introduced passage after passage and never even read the Scrip- 
tures at all. I am here to deny every one of those broad assertions, and I 
demand of him the proof of those assertions. 

He starts out to prove that there was a church in prophecy, that there 
was a church in preparation. He starts out to prove that that church had 
a foundation; that it had twelve corner stones; that it had twelve pillars; 
that it had a corner stone and therefore it is the identical church Brother 
Willis belongs- tc, and I deny it completely. I say there is not a word of it 
true. He is to prove identically that the church at Shrewsberry is one of 
those churches that was formed away back yonder at the time he has given 
us on the day of Pentecost. I deny it flatly, and call on him for the proof. 
In regard to the church in prophecy, I say, Brother Willis, that has no more 
reference to your church than it has to Mormonism, not comparing you to 
Mormanism. It remains for you to prove that. Your church is not known 
in the New Testament at all. Not at all. You are here, sir, to prove 
identity, and you will have to show according to your definition of the word 
identity it means the same. You are here to prove that your church is the 
same church as was on the day of Pentecost. You made no argument on 
the Scriptures, because you knew that they would cut your head off. Here 
is your little old chart, the church building; the kingdom; that is all right. 
But in what sense? He says in a local sense. Don't you see where 
he is? In a local sense it means the temple, or building in a local 
sense. Therefore, it confines him to the church which he belongs to, 
which excludes Methodists; it excludes Baptists; it excludes Presbyterians, 
and everything else except a little bunch that he belongs to, and he tried to 
prove that bunch was organized on the day of Pentecost. He says that it 
means the same thing. The word "church" is not in the Acts of the Apostles, 
second chapter. The church there means assembly, he called it. But what 
does the word church literally mean? He went on further to define the 
church, when the two are diametrically opposite to each other. The church 
locally! What is the church locally? Is it a congregation of believers prop- 
erly officered, in which the pure word of God is preached? Is that the 
church ? You said it was a local body, and you turned around and said in a 
general sense a local body. INow in every instance, sir, I demand the proof 
that you are the body that was organized on the day of Pentecost. You 
cannot get away from it. I have met nine of your men on your proposition. 



Now you have a job to prove that the church that Theodore Wil.:s belongs 
to was organized on the day of Pentecost and is the same identical church, 
according to your statement. Secondly, when he made that statement in 
regard to the definition of the church he cuts his own head off. 

Now, again, in the next place, the foundation — Christ, the apostles and 
prophets. First, the foundation; Christ, the apostles and prophets. Then 
there was a church in prophecy. There was a church away back there :'n 
prophecy, a perfect church. Brother Willis, did that church have priesthood 
in it? Did that church have sacraments in it? Was that church an organic 
body? Was Christ in that church? Was the Hoy Spirit in that church? 
Is the church cf the New Testament the anti-type of that church? These 
are the questions. Then Christ became the foundation stone, and He tells us 
how He was tried. That is all right; but did the Church of Jesus Christ, my 
dear brother, have anything to do with proving that the church that Elder 
Willis belongs to was organized on the day of Pentesost? Identical is your 
proposition, and you cannot get away from it. If you do not prove you are 
the same ident'cal church organized on the day of Pentecost you prove 
nothing, and you are down and out, and you have a job on your hands. I 
might admit every statement you have made, and yet you have proven 
n: thing. "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a 
kingdom, which shal never be destroyed." Dan. 2:44. Therefore, the church 
that I, Theodore Willis, belongs to is identical with the church in the New 
Testament. Does that prove it? Is that why it is true? Is that true? No. 
That church that was prophesied of back there in Dan. 2:44, as we will show 
later on, has no more relationship to the church that Brother Willis belongs 
to than it has to Mormonism or Mohammedanism; not a bit. He is here to 
prove that it does. He said it did not mean like, or similarity, but the same. 
The term "identical" means the same. 

Now, the proposition reads that "The Churches of Christ, one of which 
I, T. D. Willis, am a member, are identical in origin, name, doctrine and 
practice with the churches of the New Testament." Identical. Now, don't 
you see where he is? He has to prove identity. Did he attempt it? He 
tries to prove there was a church organized somewhere. I challenged him to 
prove where any church was organized in the sense of organization, if he 
could, to do so. Tel me when the church at Galatia was organized; tell me 
when the church of Colossae was organized and furnished with officers; tell 
me when the church of Phillippi was organized; tell me when the church at 
Ephesus was organized. You say that they were all organized on the day 
of Pentecost? First, the general church was organized on the day of 
Pentecost, but the church means local bodies, one of which means one of 
these local bodies to which I, Willis, belong. Now, then, the question comes 
up before us. He said the Church of Christ — Rom. 16:16 — I shall foliow the 
thread of his argument as far as he makes any argument. Every argument 
that Brother Willis made shall be clearly answered; that is, according to the 
rules "Salute one another with an holy kiss. The Churches of Christ salute 



you." Therefore, Brother Willis' church is that church. That is his argu- 
ment. Now what is he talking about here? He is talking about the names 
of the church. He tells us that some of these names have reference to 
individuals, that is, disciples. Some of the names have reference to their 
character as Christians, and one of those names has reference to them as 
local bodies, the Church of Christ; and, therefore, Brother Willis , Church of 
Christ is the identical church that was organized back there in Acts 2. If 
any one can show the similarity where he has any shadow of an argument 
or has proven identity I would like to know where it is. Can any one ? This 
man sitting by my side taking down what I say is a stenographer. This man's 
name is Miller. Therefore, according to his argument all stenographers' 
names are Miller. These are called Churches of Christ. Therefore, Brother 
Willis' church is called the Church of Christ. Therefore, they are identical 
in doctrine; they were organized at the same time and in the same piace, 
teach the same thing and practice the same thing simply because he has 
assumed to call his church the Church of Christ and they are called Churches 
of Christ in Romans. Such argument as that, such bosh as that on an in- 
telligent audience is unworthy cf a debater. 

Then, again, "ecclesia;" that term is in the chapter that Mr. Willis has 
introduced in the Greek. I want him to take up that Greek verse and tell 
us whether he can find one word of ecclesiasticism in it. I dare you to take 
that book and show me where one word of it is shown. He has not shown 
that there was an crganiation there, and that a church was established on the 
day of Pentecost — in fact, that not a single movement was made towards 
organization. Peter preached; the people heard and repented and believed 
and were converted and were baptized. No sign of an organization to it. 

He goes on and tells us Peter used the first key in opening the door of 
the church and it has been wide open every day since. In the name of 
common sense, how can a man open a thing that does not exist ? The church 
did not exist until it was established, nor until it was built; yet Peter took 
the key and opened the door of a church that did not exist and received the 
one hundred and twenty and three thousand into it. I want Brother Willis 
(and he must do it, and I demand of him) to show the first thread of estab- 
lishment in that chapter. Where there was a church established at all, 
the writing says that the Lord added unto them daily those that were being 
saved. Not a scintilla of evidence showing that Peter made any movement 
to put an officer in his church. He has elders and ministers in his church. 
Did Peter put any in his church that day? Show me where there was a 
single officer placed in there, or where there was a single sacrament in 
there. Where was a single sacrament placed in that church on the day of 
Pentecost ? You must show it. Were they in the church, or were they in 
something that did not exist? Can a church be a church without the sacra- 
ments? Can it? Answer it in your next speech. Can a church be a Church 
of Christ without baptism and the Lord's Supper? A body of believers, 
regenerate believers in Jesus Christ, having the ordinance of baptism and 



the Lord's Supper called out of God, is that the Church, of Christ? Now, 
you answer that, sir. Matt. 28:18-19, that is the commission. This is the 
day of baptism, but that was before the day of Pentecost. There were 
preachers there; there were apost.es there. He says, "Go ye, therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end 
of the world." There is baptism. Then, aga'n, over here we find Him. 
giving the sacrament. "Take, eat; this is My Body which is broken for 
you." "Drink ye all of the cup which is My Blood of the New Testament." 

Now, according to Brother Willis, if he has a church organized on the 
day of Pentecost he has it w'thout ordinance. Here is a body of believers 
in Christ, disciples of Christ, that have the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; 
they have tile ordinance of baptism. Yet Brother Willis says there was no 
church. Now, in the name of God, what was it? He says ecclesia was 
called out. He says the apostles were not set in the church then. They 
were paced in the church down there on the day of Pentecost. When was it 
that the apostles were placed in the church? I want Brother Willis to tell 
me when the apostles were put in the church if Jesus Christ did not use them 
as pillars, what did He use them for? When He breathed upon them the 
Holy Spirit and sent them into the world He said, "As ye go, preach." He 
breathed the Holy Spirit upon them and sent them out to preach. Were they 
believers ? What were they, members of His body ? Were they of the 
Church of Christ, or not? Col. 1:18. Let us see. "And He is the head of 
the body, the church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; 
but in all things He might have the preeminence." Therefore, Brother 
Willis' church was organized on the day of Pentecost and is identical — two 
things that have to be proven by that text. What is the meaning of that 
text, "He is the head of the body, the church?" I believe every word in this 
book. Christ is the head of the body, the church, but He is not part of the 
gentleman's church, and he is to prove that this church of which he is so 
earnesty speaking and defines so clearly as being a local body, he is to 
prove that Christ is head of that body. It remains for him to make an 
argument on it, which he did not do. He said Christ is the head of the body, 
and he is here to prove the identity of that body with his church. He has 
begged the question from the beginning to end. 

Again, 1st Cor. 12:18, "But now hath God set the members, every one 
of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if they were all one mem- 
ber, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one 
body." Now I want to ask Brother Willis these questions, is he teaching 
here of the organization of any church? Is he speaking of the establish- 
ment or the identity of any church ? "If the whole body were an eye, where 
were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?" 
"But now hath God set the members, every one of them, in the body." The 
Church of Christ is composed of many members. All the members of the 

10 



natural "body are not eyes, ears, hearing, seeing, smelling; therefore, in the 
Church of Christ all members are not the same. All members are not the 
same; but as we have many members of one body, and all members have not 
the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ and every one 
members one with another. I wi'.l read that again. 1st Cor. 12:18. "But 
now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath 
pleased Him." God d'.d that, and not Peter. "And if they were all one 
member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but 
one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; 
nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more 
those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. And 
those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these 
we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant 
comeliness. For our comely parts have no need; but God hath tempered the 
body together; having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: 
That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should 
have the same care one for another. And -whether one member suffer, all 
the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members 
rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 
And God hath set some in the churchy first apostles, secondarily prophets, 
thirdly teachers, and after that miracles, then gifts of healings, heps, gov- 
ernments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are 
all teachers ? Are all workers of miracles ? Have all the gifts of healing ? 
Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best 
gifts; and yet show I unto you a more excellent way." 

Now take the entire connection and you will see just what the apcstle 
is driving at. God hath set some in the church; first, apostles. I ask 
Brother Willis when they were set in? He must tell us when the apostes 
were set in, and if they are set in in Christ. Second, we want to know when, 
the verse where they were set in the church, and the day. Then, again, I 
want to know if the prophets were set in that church on that day. I want 
to know whether he has prophets in his church today or not. He is proving 
identity. Then, again, I want to know when the teachers were set in that 
church in Acts 2. I want to know when the gift of tongues was set in 
that church that day; whether that was of Divine authority or appointment; 
whether it is characteristic of the church today or not. I want to know when 
the deacons were put in that church on the day of Pentecost. And after he 
tells us all these things, then I want to know, Brother Willis, whether that 
is the church that you belong to, and you have it to prove. You have a gap 
of over eighteen hundred years between the birth of your church and that 
one, even if you could say you put it on the day of Pentecost. 

Now, again, he says, "I belong to that church." No, I deny that you 
belong to any church that existed at the day of Pentecost. I deny it. Then, 
with regard to its origin, he starts with Matthew 16:18, "Upon this rock I 
will build my church." You take that wcrd "bu'ld," you say it is in the 

11 



future tense. I agree to that; but I deny that it means to construct or to 
organize; I deny that it means to set up as you give it in that text. You 
take the original and trace the word out — you need not look so straight, sir — 
you take that word and trace it out and see whether it does not mean to 
to strengthen, to establish, to make strong. See whether is has not a local 
meaning to it. I will strengthen, I will make strong, I will enlarge. 
(Moderator Jones.) Your time is up. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderator, Ladies and Gentlemen: I come to 
respond to the gentleman's speech. His speech reminded me of a story I 
heard on an Irishman who came across from the old country and landed in 
New York and he was hungry and tired and so he went into a restaurant' 
to get something to eat and they served it in little dishes, and when they 
would bring around a little dish the Irishman would cast his eyes heaven- 
ward and thank the Lord for that dish, naming it. Finaily they brought 
around a dish that he did not know what it contained or what it was. He 
looked at it and cast his eyes heavenward and said, "0, Lord, I thank Thee 
for this mixy-muxy." The gentleman's reply was a mixy-muxy speech. 

Now we want to inquire first, what the gentleman would do with the 
terms of our proposition? Did he reject our definition? Not only he never 
rejected a solitary definition cf the terms, but he accepted the definition of 
the church. He said it was an ecclesia, a called out people. Not only that, 
but he accepted the name. I want you to bear that in mind. He accepted 
the name of the Church of Christ. 

(Elder Laslie.) I did not do that. I said it had no more application to 
your church than it had to Mormonism or Mohammedanism. 

(Brother Willis.) Formally you accepted the definition of the term 
identical. But sti.l you turn around and state I do not belong to the same 
church, that the church at Shrewsberry was not the same church as the 
Jerusalem church. Let's see. If the church at Shrewsberry wears the same 
name; if it teaches the same doctrines; if it practices the same things that 
the apostles practiced at Jerusalem, isn't it identical? Isn't it identical? 
If not, why not? Isn't the Mascnic institution in England identical with the 
Masonic institution in America? Even if there is intervening two thousand 
years in the organization, they are identical; the same institution. Even so 
when we wear this same name of the Jerusalem church and teach the same 
doctrines and practice the same things. It is the same identical church. If 
not, why not? But, on the other hand, after an investigation you find that 
we are wearing a different name, and we are teaching a different doctrine, 
and we are practicing things that were not practiced by the church in 
Jerusalem, then our conclusion is it is not the same church. No, indeed, it 
is not the same church, but an entirely different institution. 

He grumbles because I introduced quite a list of Scriptures. I made no 
argument on them. I stated clearly what those Scriptures proved, and I 
called attention to the book, chapter and verse. I cailed attention to what 

12 



those Scriptures proved, and I cited you the reference. Why didn't you take 
up those Scriptures and show that they do not prove what I say they prove ? 
Identity of the church! He does not belong to the same church at Shrews- 
berry that was established at Jerusalem. We have shown you what identity 
means. It depends on the name of the church; it depends on the teaching 
and on the practice as to the same institution. He claims prophecy has no 
reference to "your church." No, it has no reference to my church, or your 
church, either; but prophecy does have reference to the Church of Jesus 
Christ, and we trace that prophecy down to the establishing of that church. 

Now, take Ziori; what did he do with that. I emphasize the fact and the 
importance of you taking hold of that word Zicn. The foundation was laid 
in Zion. Did he take hold of it? Answer that in your next speech and tell 
us what Zion is. If it is not Jerusalem, what is it? He says, if I didn't 
misunderstand him, that there is no organization in Acts 2. You said there 
is no church in Acts 2. No church in Acts 2. I debated with one of your 
men cnce and he took the same posifon. 

(Elder Laslie.) I stated there is no such organization in Acts 2. I said 
the word "church" was not in Acts 2. You stated me correctly. I said the 
word "church" was not in Acts 2. I said you proved an organization. 

(Brother Willis.) You said the word "church" is not in Acts 2. Now 
you have admitted it. You are confused and confounded. Let us see if there 
was any church in Acts 2. Acts 2:47, "And the Lord added to the church 
daily such as were being saved." 

(Eider Laslie.) What version have you? 

(Brother Willis.) Authorized vers'on. I think I have some Baptist 
version I will introduce and see if they don't use the word "church." I have 
time to introduce one here now. I have all kinds of translations, and seme 
are Baptistic, too. Acts 2:47, "Praising God, and having favor with all the 
people. And the Lord added to the church daily those that were saved." This is 
the B.'ble Union translation. Yes, there is a church in Acts 2. You cannot see 
any organization? One hundred and twenty people assembled in an upper 
rcom at Jerusalem; they received the Holy Spirit, and there was added to 
them three thousand souls. Do you see any organization there? 

(Edler Laslie.) No, sir. 

Brother Wilis.) You cannot, no. So, in addition, three thousand 
souls were added to the one hundred and twenty. No church in Jerusalem ? 
He says we do not have the ordinance of the Lord's house, and he quotes 
Matt. 26. 

(Elder Laslie.) I did not say they had no ordinance. 

(Brother Willis.) He says that is not a church because of that fact. 
Then he quotes Matt. 26 to prove that the Lord put the Lord's Supper in the 
church. You object seriously because I used the word in a local sense and 
not a general sense. Then he asks the question, was Christ in the Jewish 
church? Jesus Christ, He was born into the Jewish church by birth of 
the flesh. That is how He got in there. Born into the old Jewish church 

13 



by birth of the flesh. There were but two ways of becoming a member of the 
old institution; that was by birth or by purchase of Abraham's money. You 
are born of water, of the Spirit; John 3:5, and go into the kingdom of the 
Church of Christ. You remember Paul in 1st Cor. in the 10th chapter when 
he talks, about Israelites. He says that Christ was following. Moses w T as 
in the lead. They drank of that rock and that rock was Christ. Christ was 
following — Moses in the lead. He was the mediator in that institution. Now 
Christ is leading. He was mediator under this dispensation, and the New 
Testament is the law. 

He wanted to know if the churches were organized on the day of Pente- 
cost. No, that is my church; that is the first church, too. Still, this church, 
Jerusalem, is the mother church and churches were organized throughout 
Samaria, Galicia, Corinth and Antioch, and there was various provinces. 
Churches were not organized in Jerusalem. 

Now, he got back to that ordinance question again. Yes, sir, a church 
can be a church without ordinance, and the churches did exist without 
officers for quite a few years. You understand that? There were called 
out people and there were Churches of Christ because of that fact. Note 
that down and reply to it. Go to the meaning of the word church. A church 
can exist without officers, and did exist for a number of years. You recog- 
nize the name Church of Christ all right. Now you remember that. He is 
going to have the laboring in his hands that last two days of this discussion. 
I am in the lead now. 

God set the members in the body, not Peter. Who set the members in 
the body? You are guessing at it. Who said Peter, or any other apostle, 
ever set the members in the ^ body of Christ? Thus the Lord adds to the 
church and not man. Men are instruments in the hands of God to preach 
the gospel, but man has not the power to add to the Lord's church. The 
Lord adds and saves. Who said Peter added to the church? The apostles 
were ambassadors of the Lord and the words of reconciliation were in their 
hands. They went about under the great commission and they preached the 
word of reconciliation. 2nd. Cor. 5. They were instruments in the hands of 
the Lord; they were agents doing work for the Lord under the great com- 
mission given by Him that hath ail authority in heaven and in. earth. Yes, 
God sets the members in the church. When were the apostles set in the 
church? On Pentecost. Yes, mark that down. 

(Elder Laslie.) Prove it. 

(Brother Willis.) I have proved it, sir. I have proven it. I have shown 
you that, according to prophecy, the foundation was to be laid in Zion. Now, 
listen, tell us where Zion is. Don't do like H. B. Taylor and say Zion is at 
Galilee. Be careful. Isa. 28:16, he says, ''Behold, I lay in Zion for a founda- 
tion a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he 
that believeth shall not make haste." Eph. 2:20, we learn what the founda- 
tion is. Zion is not Jerusalem? "And are built upon the foundation of the 
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." 

14 



The apostles were the foundation and first set in. 

(Elder Laslie.) Where were they? 

(Brother Willis.) In Jerusalem. 

(Elder Laslie.) When? 

(Brother Willis.) In the year 33. 

(Elder Laslie.) On the day of Pentecost? 

(Brother Willis.) Yes, sir. At the right time and in the right place 
we have twelve pi lars. You don't have much to say about those pillars. 
You don't have much to say about the foundation. You don't have much to 
say about Zion. We will hear some talk from you a little later. The founda- 
tion was laid in Zion. The prophets were put in that foundation; the gift 
of tongues was put in that foundation; miracles were put in that foundation 
for the purpose of confirmation; Mark 16:20. Heb. 2. Prophets are put in 
that foundation; apostles are put in that foundation; and Jesus Christ, the 
chief corner stone; and miracles were put into that foundafon as a con- 
firmation. The Lord says it is my church; Matt. 16:18. I belong to the 
Lord's church. In Exodus 20:24 we learn, "Where I record My name I will 
come unto thee, and I will bless thee." That was true then, and it is true 
now. God is with His people wherever He records His name, and don't meet 
with them anywhere else. 

The name of the Father and the Son is recorded in this Divine institu- 
tion, and known as the Church of God and the Church of Christ. Your 
church — eighteen hundred years too young. A church at Shrewsberry — and 
here is the record. Look and see if it is not designated by the name Church 
of Christ. I have over half a doen records to identify myseif , as well as the 
Church of Jesus Christ, of which I am a member. We will see if you ban 
identify yourself when the time comes. Matt. 16:18 — "built" is future. I 
thank you for your admission. Not many of these Baptists will admit that. 
"I will build my church." He says then Peter, the Church of Christ then, 
was not builded at that time. You dare not go back in the wilderness; you 
dare not go to the Mount of Transfiguration; you dare not go there to 
Galilee. Thank you for that admission. I will remember it. "Upon this 
rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it." Did he build it? Yes. When? In the year A. D. 33, and it is built 
on a sure foundation. Laid in Zion, according to the prophecy, and hence 
no wonder that the apostle Paul, in the 12th chapter of Heb., says, "We have 
received a kingdom which cannot be moved." Jesus Christ, in Matt. 16:18, 
says, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." A tried stone and 
tried pillars! Poor old Judas; he fell down. 

Now I want to make an argument on the law. I am going to draw a 
line of distinction. I want to see where you belong and see on which side 
of the line you stand. The first argument we base on Eph. 2:15, "Having 
abolish in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained 
in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man" — new church. 
You said in the McKinley debate that was the same old church carriea on 

15 



under three dispensaf ons. I have your notes here. 1 was moderator on the 
other side of that debate. The same old Abrahamic church passed down 
under three dispensations. The Lord will make of Himself of twain one 
new man, the Church of Christ. It is brand-new; there is nothing about it 
that is old. The verse above says, "And hath broken down the middle wall 
of partition between us. Paul was a Jew, and showed the former condition 
of the Gentiles by saying, "That at that time ye were without Christ, being 
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants 
of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. This was their 
condition prior to a certain fee, as Paul says in the 13th verse. 

(Elder Laslie.) What chapter? 

(Brother Willis.) Eph. 2:15; "But now in Chr'st Jesus ye who some- 
times were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." And when Jesus 
shed His blood the Gentiles were afar off, and the middle wall was broken 
down, to make in himself of twain one new man — new church. Now, since 
the middle wall was removed to make the new man, the new man was not 
made before it was broken down. Wjhat is that broken wall? It is enmity 
God made a special promise to Abraham, he and his posterity should enter 
the Canan land. Did they keep His covenant? No. Jer. 31:31; "Behold, 
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the 
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." Read the 32nd verse, "Not 
according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I 
took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." In 1st 
Sam. 2:30 God said, "I said unto thee that thy house, and the house of thy 
father, should walk before me forever; but now the Lord saith, Be it far 
from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me 
shall be lightly esteemed." Then we san see that the promise is based on 
conditions. If the Jews had kept the law it would be in force today. Since 
they did not keep it He made a new law. Paul says, Heb. 8:8, "For if the 
first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for 
the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days have 
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of 
Israel and with the house of Judah." We have a new covenant, a New 
Testament, and Jesus Christ is the author. He is the law-giver. Isa. 5:1; 
"Now will I sing to my well beloved a song of my beloved (the children of 
Israel) touching his vineyard in a very fruitful hill; and he fenced it, and 
gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and 
built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein; and he 
looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes." 
The fence is evidently the law of Moses. The choicest vine must have been 
the children cf Israel. The grapes were good works, but the wild grapes were 
evil works. The enmity between the two nations was broken down with 
Jesus Christ. So the cross of Christ is the end of the law and on Pentecost 
is the ushering in of the New Testament; universal in its proclamation, em- 
bracing all the kindreds and nations of the earth. Moses was the first; 

16 



Christ the second. The promise was temporary to the first and eternal to the 
second. See the difference? The dedication (of) the seal of that covenant 
was with the blood of animals; the seal of the New Testament was with the 
blood of Christ. Where do you belong, Elder? 

The children of Israel were chosen; and God placed them in the land of 
Canaan to keep His law. God said, "And now go to; I will tell you what I 
will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof and it shall be 
eaten up; and break down the wall thereof." Note. God said He would 
break down the wall and take away the hedge. Paul said the middle wall 
was broken down in order to make cf the twain one new man. In Eph. Paul 
said it had been broken down, and somewhere between Isa. and Eph. we find 
it was down. Paul says it was a law of commandments contained in ordi- 
nances of the old covenant. When was that covenant (of) middle wall taken 
away? Zech. 11:10; "And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, 
that I m'ght break my covenant which I had made with all the people; and 
it was broken in that day." The staff, even Beauty, was cut asunder. It was 
broken in that day. The staff was broken asunder. Who was the staff of 
Beauty? "If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they 
weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver." He is the staff, even Beauty, 
who was cut asunder on the cross. Now, since the covenant was broken on 
the day He was nailed to the cross, Paul says, "Blotting out the handwriting 
of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out 
of the way, nailing it to His cross." This proves beyond a doubt that the 
law was taken away (from) the cross. Now it was taken away at the cross. 
We conclude that the new man was not established before the death of 
Jesus Christ. Jesus died at the end of the Jewish day. Heb. 9:26, Paul says, 
"Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the 
sacrifice of himself." It could not have reference to the universe. The rocks 
and the hills and mountains we know had not ended, but the law of Moses did 
end then. The expression "new man" implies that man; the expression "old 
man" means the old Jewish church — Moses as mediator — these members 
were called Israelites. New man is the new church of Christ with Christ as 
mediator. These members are called Christians. 

(Moderator Hines.) Your time is up. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brother Moderators and Friends: I am just a little bit 
amused at the gentleman in his talk. I want to make a statement here, and 
I believe that every man, woman and child on the ground heard me make it. 
I laid my Greek Testament on the table there and I asked Brother Willis to 
take that and prove that the word church was in Acts, 2nd chapter. The first 
move he made was to try to make it appear that I held out the idea that the 
church did not exist then, diametrically opposite to what I meant to say, and 
to what I did say. I say the Church of Christ did exit, but it had not its 
beginning on the day of Pentecost, and if you will remember I asked Brother 
Willis the question if the keys could open the door to a church that did not 

17 



exist. I asked him to tell us whether Peter could open the doors of a church 
that did not exist, and he d'd not tell us, and he won't tell us; and I still say 
that the word church is not in Acts 2. Verse 47 is not anything- like it. The 
original reads, "And the Lord added unto them." It makes no difference 
what version he may introduce. But again, when we turn to the American 
Revised Version, wh'ch is the standard I suppose in every church in the 
United States, and possibly in the world, we find this statement in Acts 2: 
"And the Lord added unto them day by day those that were being saved; 
those that were saved." That is the American Revised Version, and it is 
translated or given by the greatest scholars of the age. I do not know 
whether he has a Baptist vers'on or not; I do not care at all, but when we 
come to the original it states it "And the Lord added unto those day by day 
that were saved, or being saved." Here is the original Greek, and Mr. Willis 
is welcome to use it, and I challenge him to take it and ever get the word 
"church" from a pronoun. The word "church" as we have it today is not 
derived from the word "ecclesia." The word church comes from more mod- 
ern terms than that. We find it brought up from the Anglo-Saxon "kirk." 
We find it brought up from there into the German word "kirke." Here is 
where we get the word "church," and not from ecc.esia. We get such words 
as ecclesiastic, ecclesiastical, ecclesiastically, from the word "ecclesia," and 
these apply to the army; to a body of men called out for service in the army; 
for any purpose whatever, and it is not translated anywhere, and cannot be 
used as a specific body called out by God in the New Testament. 

Now, then, in the next place, with regard to these Scriptures. He stated 
that I said these Scriptures proved that. I said they did not. He has to show 
that these Scriptures do prove that proposition. I am not here to take your 
statements. The Catholics say the term "key" means the infallibility of the 
Pope. Do you take it because they say so? The Catholics say when the 
Scripture was used, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
heaveri ; and whatsoever thou shait bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Whose- 
soever sins are remitted, etc. They assert that this had reference to the 
power of the Pope, and the forgiveness of sins or retaining of sins lies in 
the hands of the priesthood. 

He comes along and says, "These Scriptures prove what I teach," and 
I say they do not do it. It remains for him to show that they prove it. If 
he does not do it it stands as it is. He has made assertion after assertion. 
He says I admit it. I admit nothing. I deny it in toto. I say in regard to 
the church, etymologically, he is correct, but when it comes to his Biblical 
interpretation he is all wrong. I say there was a foundation under the 
church. Catholics do not dispute it; Mormons do not deny it, and no one else 
under the canopy of heaven disputes it. I said that was not in "the gentle- 
man's church." He has not introduced a scintilla of argument to prove it 
was in his church. He sets out by asserting himself there were other de- 
nominations or bodies of churches, and brings up his record to prove that 

18 



he belongs to the church. I do not deny that he belongs to a church at 
Shrewsberry, and maybe a half dozen of them; but I do deny that they are 
gospel churches, and he is here to prove that they are gospel churches and 
churches of Christ. I said h's church began tco young. I said it was over 
eighteen hundred years behind the time, and I am ready to prove it, and 
will prove it. 

Then again, organized. I challenged him to prove where any organiza- 
tion took place. Peter preached; the people repented in heart and were 
saved and were baptized. Did he answer it? He said, "He added unto it 
day by day the saved." I said Peter preached. I repeat it again. The 
people heard; they were pricked in their heart; they repented of their sins 
and believed in Christ and ware baptized. The Bible says, ' 'He that believeth 
:*n the Son hath everlasting life," John 3:36. I said, furthermore, that I 
might admit that there was a church organization, set up, established en 
the day of Pentecost, but yet I deny that this is the genteman's church and 
the church that he belongs to, and he is here to prove it. I am not supposed 
to prove anything except the statements I make. When I make an assertion 
the law of debate demands that I prove it, and the same applies to him. The 
law of debate demands that his statements do prove what he says they do. 
I am not here to do that. He must prove what he says. He says Christ was 
in the Jewish church. Then was it a Church of Christ if Christ was in it? 
I asked him if the Spirit was in it'; I asked him if the ordinances were in it. 
He d'd not answer it. I asked him if a church that had Christ in it and the 
ordinances was a Church of Christ. He says Christ was in that old Jewish 
church. I want you to answer the balance of it and tell us whether it is a 
Church of Christ or not. 

He says again, Christ was following the church. Christ was in the 
lead — Closes was :'n the lead. I wonder by whose authority Moses was in the 
lead. Tell us, Brother Willis, who put Moses in the lead. Tell us whether or not 
they were not following the pillar of c.oud by day and the pillar of fire by 
night. Tell us whether or not they were net following that. Tell us whether 
or not they did all eat of that same spiritual meat, and whether they did all 
drink of that same spiritual drink ? Did it mean He just went behind them ? 
No. It meant that He progressed with them; He was overshadowing them; 
and they all ate of the same spiritual meat and drank of that same spiritual 
drink. Jesus Christ was guiding in the pilar of cloud by day and the pillar 
of fire by night, and when Moses came to the Red Sea God commanded him 
to stand still and see the salvation of the Lord. God was at the head of the 
thing; Christ was leading. Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord, 
and he stood there until God authorized him to stretch out his rod over the 
sea, and the waters divided and they passed through and the Egyptians 
were drowned. 

Then, again, he says a church can be a church without ordinance and 
without officers. Then, if it can, my brother, what is the use of ordinances ? 
What is the use Gf officers ? What dees it take to constitute a Church of 

19 



Christ? You have officers in your church;, what do you want with them? 
Have you got ordinances in your church? You have one in, ycu say, and 
one out. One leg in and the other one out. Then again, I want him to tell 
us — he says a church can be a church without ordinances and without 
officers. I ay emphatically it is not so, and call on him for the proof. He 
says, "Who said Peter added to the church?" He told us Peter used the 
keys down there the first time. He told us Peter opened the doors of the 
church there. When Brother Willis steps out and gives an opportunity for 
the reception of members does he receive members into the church? Is he 
God's vice-regent there, or is he God's authorized preacher to receive mem- 
bers into the church? Now, if Peter received them into the church, does 
God add them to the church? Coming back to his own statement, I demand 
him to show where God Almighty gave Peter authority to organize a 
church, to set up a church. Tel us, Brother Willis, how Peter could open the 
doors to a church that did not exist. I say the church ex'sted then; that 
the church did not originate then, but it was already in existence. Peter 
opened the doors of a church that already existed, and the Lord, through 
Peter's opening the doors of the church, added daily to the church those 
that were being saved. Eph. 2:14, I want to read it. He says, "Daslie is 
going to have something to do." We want something to do in this thing. 
Eph. 2:14; "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken 
down the middle wall of partition between us." Brother Wiillis says, "When 
was that wall of partition broken down?" Was it broken down on the day 
of Pentecost? You are here to answer those questions. When was that 
middle wall of partition broken down? You did not tell us. It was broken 
down between the Jew and Gentile, was all broken down, on the day the ve'l 
of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. Wasn't that 
when the middle wall of partition was broken down? 

Then again, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law 
of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain 
one new man." "Of the two." What two was it? Was it that body that 
Peter used the keys on down there on the day of Pentecost? Was that 
one of them? And was the other that body that Peter preached to at the 
house of Cornelius? Then on these two bodies wasn't the New Testament 
church composed? Now you answer these questions. The middle wall of 
partition was broken down, that was between us, down there on the 
day of days, the crucifixion. The veil of the temple was rent from top to 
bottom. There the middle wall of partition was broken down when God 
Almighty, through Jesus Christ, gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. He 
used one of them at Pentecost. He preached the gospel to the people; they 
believed it; they received it; thy accepted it'; they believed in Jesus Christ 
and repented of their sins; they were saved; they there received Jesus 
Christ as their Savior. Now down here at the house of Cornelius we see 
Peter again and he tells us here in this vision when he saw the sheet let> 
down God said to him, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat," and he said, "Not so, 

20 



Lord, nothing that is common or unclean ever entered my mouth. And the 
voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that 
call not thou common." Then he told him to rise and go with them, fearing 
nothing. Now he goes down to the house of Cornelius; he preaches the 
gospel to Cornelius and those that were there, and while he yet preached 
the Holy Spirit fell on all that heard the word and they that gladly received 
the word were baptized. What do we learn from this? We learn from 
Peter's own language that God is no respecter of persons. He understood 
the vision. He understood that God had cleansed those people and that 
they were to be received into the same body, that Peter received the Jews, 
or that the Jews belonged to that body under the gospel dispensation. 

Let us go to Acts 15 and see what we learn from that. Acts, 15th 
chapter, beginning with the 7th verse. "And when there had been much dis- 
puting Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how 
that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my 
mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which; 
loioweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even 
as He did unto us. And put no difference between us and them, purifying 
their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yokje 
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able 
to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lcrd Jesus Christ 
we shall be saved, even as they." Here they received on the same ground. 
God put no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, giving them the 
same Holy Ghost as us. He says, "Put no difference between us and them, 
purifying their hearts by faith.'' That does not look like your church. You 
do not teach that; you do not preach that; you do not beieve that, that the 
heart of man is purified by faith; that men's sins are pardoned by faith. 
Peter says, "Their hearts are purified by faith." Undertand, the middle 
wall of partition was broken down. I asked him to tell us when it was 
done. It was done on the day Christ Jesus was crucified. Why didn't he 
go on and tell us that the law that ended there at the cross tore down the 
middle wall ? That the Jew and the Gentile were received there on the same 
basis and their hearts were purified on the same ground and in the same 
way? Why didn't he do it? He says not many Baptists will admit that the 
words "will build" are in the future tense. I am not here to say what many 
Baptists will do. I have had discussions with the Baptists, some of the 
strongest men, J. J. Porter and quite a number of others, and I have never 
found any of those men that said the words "will build" are not in the 
future tense. I say the words "will build" do not mean to organize and set 
up. That is what I said. Let him show that the words "will build" there 
as applied to Acts 2 mean to organize, establish and set up an individual, 
church, as he says, and then prove that his church is that church. That is 
what he has to do. 

Now then again, he talks about the same church of old. Jer. 31:32; 
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant 

21 



with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not according to the 
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the 
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, 
although I was an husband unto them." What did Brother Willis say? He 
said Moses was in the lead. God says He took them by the hand and 
brought them out. With whom was this covenant made? With the new 
church? No. ''Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a 
new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." He 
will have you believe on the day of Pentecost the covenant was made. They 
were a new and entirely different people altogether. God says here that He 
made the covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 
Not according to the covenant that I made with your fathers when I led 
them out of Egypt. They broke the covenant. God made a new covenant 
with the same people. 1st Sam. 2:30, "Wherefore, the Lord God of Israel 
saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk 
before me forever; but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that 
honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 
Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy 
father's house, and there shall not be an old man in thine house. And thou 
shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give 
Israel; and there shall not be an old man in thine house forever. And the 
man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume 
thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart; and all the increase of thine house 
shall die in the flower of their age. And this shall be a sign unto thee, 
that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phineas; in one day they 
shall die, both of them." Is he speaking of the church, or is he speaking 
of national Israel? I will tell you there is not a scintilla of evidence here 
that has reference to the church in any sense. Read on. "And it shall come 
to pass, that every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to 
him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and they shall say, Put me, 
I pray thee, into one of the priests' offices, that I may eat a piece of bread." 
The argument stands before you on that passage of Scripture. 2nd Sam. 
2:30, "And Joab returned from following Abner, and when he had gathered 
the people together, there lacked of David's servants nineteen men. and 
Asahel." I think he must have given me the wrong reference. I don't 
think you gave me the right reference. 

(Brother Willis.) It was 1st Sam. 

(Elder Laslie.) I want to get him again. Heb. 8:8. What do we find 
here in Heb. 8:8? Beginning back a little; let us begin with the 4th verse. 
"For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are 
priests that offer gifts according to the law." For if He were on earth, He 
should not be a priest. So there are priests. I will read the 3rd verse, 
"or every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it 
is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." He tells why 

22 



Christ Jesus was not a priest while on earth. In the name of common 
sense, why did He have to offer sacrifices ? 
(Adjourned to 1 o'clock). 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderator, Ladies and Gentlemen: After a 
refreshing rest and a good old Kentucky meal we are before you again in 
defense of the proposition. 

The first thing, I want to notice some things Elder Laslie said in his 
last speech. I want to ask him, first, what about Zion, Elder? It seems 
like you are dodging this. Is Zion Jerusalem? If it isn't, te'.l us what it 
is. Is it Galilee? What about Zion? He dodges the question so far. He 
says the church in Acts 2 did not exist. 

(Elder Laslie.) Brother Moderator, I did not say that. I said there 
was a church in Acts 2, but it was not organized in Acts 2. 

(Brother Willis.) Now he has a church without an organization. There 
was a church in Acts 2, but not before the organization. 

(Elder Laslie.) I said that the church was organized before Acts 2. 

(Brother Willis.) He says the church did not exist in Acts 2. The 
church did exist in Acts 2, but there was no organization. I would be 
pleased to know how a church could exist without organization. Tell us 
that in your next speech, Elder, That will be something new. He says* 
Will your keys open something that doe's not exist? Nlo. That is as easy 
as falling off a log. No. A man cannot open something that does not exist. 
It matters not how much prohpecy he has. But the church did exist on 
Pentecost. I have shown you that the foundation was laid in Zion, and we 
told you, furthermore, that Zion was Jersualem, and hence the building was 
builded on the foundation, and if that building was erected then, and Peter 
with the authority to bind and loose — that is what Christ says in Matt. 
16:19. He says, "And I will give unto, thee the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Did 
he have a church to open? He .says the American Revised Version reads, 
"Added unto them." The question is, who were "them?" They were the 
one hundred and twenty assembled in an upper room at Jerusalem that 
waited for the premised power. They received it; hence it is life, and the 
body wthout the spirit is dead, says the apostle James. James 2:26. Thus 
the nucleus of the church, as we told you in our first speech, and after the 
preaching three thousand that heard the word and obeyed, there was hence 
added to them (the church of the one hundred and twenty.) He cannot see 
organization. 

Now he says the word "church" is not derived from ecclesia. Do you 
object to my definition of the term? 

(Elder Laslie.) Yes, sir. 

23 






Brother Willis.) I think not. You accepted my definition of the term 
ecclesia. That is the Greek, ecclesia, which simply means a church or called 
cut people. You accepted it. 

(E der Laslie.) No, I did not. 

(Brother Willis.) I know where your little Grub-Ax is. Now he says 
in answer to "When and where did Christ tell him to organize a church?" 
He said, "Well, we will read: 'And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and on 
this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it.' Matt. 16:18. To build means in this passage to construct, to 
set up, to establish, to organize." Las.ie against Laslie. Here you meet 
yourself in the road, Elder. So much for the Grub-Ax. You had better quit 
putting out stuff like that. 

Now he comes back and he stated that these Scriptures proved his 
proposition. He says these Scriptures do not prove anything. "Behold, I 
lay in Zion for a foundation stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a 
sure foundation." I affirm that Zion was Jerusalem. Do you deny it? He 
has not until this good hour. He is afraid to take a position on it. Wait 
and see. I affirm that Christ was the head of the body, the church. I 
quoted Col. 1:18. Does that prove the affirmative? Paul says "He is the 
head of the body, the church." "Oh, yes," he says, "the foundation is under 
the church, but it isn't under 'the gentleman's church'." Who has been 
talking about "the gentleman's church?" The foundaticn is under it all 
right, but where is it laid ? In Zion, the prophet says. Is Zion Jerusalem ? 
There is the stake. Pull it up. No, it is under "the gentleman's church." 
I haven't any church. If I had a church I wouldn't have it in the condition 
the General Baptist Church is in. If you have a church, Elder, what are you 
going to do with it? My proposition calls for the Church of Christ, and I 
affirm that proposition, one of which I am a member, and I call attention to 
the church record of the Church of Christ at Shrewsberry, Kentucky, and we 
find it headed Church of Christ. And besides that I have church records 
from several counties. I named them this morning. I am open for inspec- 
tion to see what I represent. 

The Church of Christ is not the gospel church. Did you say that, Elder ? 
You will remember he told me what is the gospel church. If the church that 
Jesus Christ planted here in the earth, which is the heavenly plant watered 
with the dews of heaven, is not the gospel church what is the gospel church? 
The Jewish church — was Christ in it? Was Christ in the Jewish church? 
I answered that question once and said He was born into it by birth of the 
flesh, and I said there was only two ways of becoming a member of the 
Jewish church. The Israelites were a cailed out people out of Egypt. Christ 
was a member of it and became such by the birth of the flesh. We became 
members of the Church of Jesus Christ by birth of water and of the spirit. 
John 3:5. Then he says, "Was it the Church of Christ?" No, don't you 
know the difference, Elder, between the old Jewish church and the Church of 

24 



Jesus Christ? I will teach you a little bit. I was one of your pupils once; 
now you are my pupil, Elder. Here we go. 

Heb. 3, beginning with the first verse. "Wherefore, holy brethren, par- 
takers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our 
profession, Christ Jesus. Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as 
also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy 
cf more giory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath 
more honor than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but 
he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his 
house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken 
after. But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we 
hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." 
Whose house do you belong to, Elder? Do you belong to Moses' or Christ's? 
Are you under the law and the gospel? Do you see the difference? Do you 
see the contrast? That is easy. 

Who put Moses in the lead? Isn't that easy? God put him in the 
lead. Do you remember when God appeared to Moses and called him and 
sent him to Egypt? What for? To lead the people out of bondage. God 
put him in the lead. Did Christ follow then? 1st Cor. 10, Paul says "For 
they drank cf that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was 
Christ." Do you believe that, Elder? He shook his head. 

(Elder Laslie.) That is your interpretation. 

(Brother Willis.) Moses said they drank of the Rock that followed 
him, and that Rock was Christ. Take hold of that. 

The Church of Christ without officers or ordinances. You know the 
Church of Jesus Christ, it was a number of years after it was organized 
before they had officers. You understand that. But they were churches 
nevertheless. Did Peter have authority to build a church? Did you ever 
read the 5th chapter of 2nd Cor. where Paul declares that they were ambas- 
sadors of the Lord and that God had committed unto us the word of recon- 
ciliation. And you say they did not have authority to build? Now listen. 
In Matt. 16:19 Christ says "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
heaven'; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 
You say they haven't the authority to build? Christ built the church, but 
He did it through His instrumentality. Jesus Christ is drawing men to 
Him through the preaching of the gospel. We take issue on the direct 
operation of the spirit. 

When was that middle wall of partition broken down? Don't you 
know, Elder? I will teach you again. When was the middle wall of par- 
tition broken down? Let us go to Eph. 2:14; "For he (that is Christ) is 
our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall 
of partition between us. He asked "Who is 'us'?" Jew and Gentile. 
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments 
contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man" (the 

25 



church) "having slain the enmity thereby/.' When was that wall of par- 
tition broken down? On the cross of Christ. Do you understand that, 
Elder? Acts 15:7, "Purifying their hearts by faith." He says "You don't 
believe that." I want to state emphatically I do believe it with all my 
heart. Acts 15:7. Turn there and read it and see what it says. "And the 
apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when 
there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and 
brethren, ye know hew that a good while ago God made choice among us, 
that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and 
believe." Did the apostles have anything to do with it? Did they have 
power to believe? "Gcd made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my 
mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which 
knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even 
as he d'd unto us. And put no difference between us and them, purifying 
their hearts by faith." I thought you said, Elder, I didn t be.ieve. Why do 
you put words in my mouth, I do believe it, because the Word of God it 
means our hearts are purified by faith, and not by faith alone. Take a 
stand on that; by faith expressed, faith perfected, faith by obedience purifies 
the heart. 

You never had these discussions with the Baptists. You are having 
quite a time with the Baptists now, are you not? Don't you want me to 
help you a little bit? This debating, you introduced that yourself, and you 
had six debates with the Baptists, and they were all learned fellows, too. 

Moses in the lead. God put him in the lead. Heb. 8:8. In the 4th 
verse, Paul says he should not be a priest on earth. I made an argument 
on the priesthood and referred to the Scriptures. How do you like Thayer? 
He is a Greek lexicon. Page 440. "The Greek word build (Greek) i. e., by 
reason of the strength of thy faith thou shalt be my principal support in 
the establishment of my church. Matt. XVI-18." You might read the Greek 
and you are not authority, and neither am I. He is authority. I will take 
care of the terms that I use in this discussion. You mark that down. 

The churches were officered. In Tit. 1:4 we have the qualifications. It 
is Tit. 1:4-10 we have the qualifications. 1st Tim. 3:1-8; 1st Pet. 5:1-6 we 
have the duties of the officers that are known in the New Testament as 
elders, bishops, overseers, rulers and pastors. That is the appellation by 
which these officers are known. How chosen: Tit. 1:4-5; "Grace, mercy, 
and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For 
this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things 
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." 
You have elders in the General Baptist Church? Acts 14:21-24; "And when 
they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they re- 
turned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch. Confirming the souls 
of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we 
must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when 

26 



they "had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, 
they con mended them to the Lord, on whom they be.ieved." The qualifica- 
tion of an elder is to be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, 
of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no 
striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 
one that ruleth well his own house." There is the qualifications of an 
elder. Then 1st Tim. 5:17-20; Acts 20:28-33; "Take heed therefore unto 
yourselves, and to all the fleck over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own 
blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves 
enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall 
men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased 
not to warn every one night and day with tears." The duties enjoined upon 
the elders were to take heed, oversee, to exhort, watch, and to rebuke. That 
is the duty of the elders. Now the duties of members towards elders, Heb. 
13:17; "Obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourse.ves; fcr they 
watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it 
with joy, and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you." Thess. 5:17; 
The elders of the Church of Christ are required to submit to one; to obey, 
and to esteem, and to rebuke not an elder nor accuse him only in the presence 
of witnesses. That is the duties enjoined on the members of the Church of 
Jesus Christ. They are doing their duty and overseeing and ruling. The 
Church of Christ, I have the record right here, it is cpen for inspection — 
they have elders and have deacons and they are ordained of God, and I want 
to say to you that the church at Jerusalem when first organized, or the 
church at Samaria, they did not in their first organization have elders and 
deacons, but they did a number of years after; and so the instructions are 
to the ministers to ordain elders and select men in the congregatiob. who 
are capable of instructing and leading and directing minds of the members 
of the body of Christ. 

Here is another church in the name of "My church." My church. Matt. 
16:18. My proposition calls for the Church of Christ. Rem. 16:16; 
"Churches of Christ salute you." We cannot be wrong about that. I read 
it out of the Book. Watch and see if the Elder reads the names of the 
churches out of the Book on his proposition. Matt. 16:18; Church of God 
or Christ; 1st Cor. 1:1; Rom. 16:16; Church of the first born; Heb. 12:23. 
Who is the first born? Co 1 .. 1,18, Paul says "And he is the head of the body, 
the Church; who is the beginning, the first born from the dead; that in all 
things he might have the pre-eminence." Jesus Christ is the first born from 
the dead; therefore it is the Church of Christ. New name; Isa. 62:2; 65:15. 
Called sheep by name; John 10:3-16. Disciples called Christians; Acts 
11:26; 26:28. We have the word Christian but three times in the Testa- 
ment. The namo Christian is not in the Old Testament at all. According 
to the prophesy of Isa. 62:2; "Thou shalt be called by a new name, which 

27 



the mouth of the Lord shall name." Hence, the disciples were called Chris- 
tians first at Antioch. The second time the name is used is in Acts 26:28, 
in Paul's defense before King Agrippa at the accusation, Agippa says "Al- 
most thou persuadest me to be a Christian." He knew what it meant to 
become a Christian. In 1st Pet. 4:15-16 we have this: Peter said "But let 
none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a 
busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let 
him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." Let him, 
glorify God in this name. 

So, friends, I am wearing that name as an individual disciple, a Chris- 
tian, a follower of the meek and lowly Savior. That is the only name you 
can wear. Every time you speak the name Christian you speak the name 
Christ with a termination "ian"; you have the term Christ'an. There is no 
other name you can wear than the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. We 1 
wear that name not only in an individual sense but in a collective sense, and 
in honor to Jesus Christ, and the man who turns aside from that Divine name 
and takes a human name dishonors God and takes to himself the honor and 
glory, if there is any honor and glory in it, to himself and he makes the 
great mistake that Moses made when God commanded him to assemble the 
Israelites before the rock and speak with them, and giving assurance that 
water would issue forth, and he smote the rock in honor of himself and his 
brother Aaron and he took to himself the honor. And God says to Moses, 
as thou hast failed to sanctify me in the eyes of the people, you shall not 
lead my people into the promised land. God says, you shall not lead my 
people into Canaan, simply because you failed to sanctify me in the eyes of 
the people. You failed to give Me the honor and glory that was due Me. 
The sectarians have turned aside the Divine institution planted here in the 
world by the power of Almighty God; and he says in Matthew 15:13 that all 
other plants will be rooted up, with the exception of th's one. I say they 
are failing to sanctify God in the eyes of the people when they turn aside 
from the Divine name and take upon themselves human names and become 
members of the human institutions, with human heads and human systems 
for their direction and instructions. I thank you for the good attention you 
have given. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brethren and moderators and friends: I am called to 
appear before you again this afternoon, after having eaten a good dinner. 
You know a person feels good after eating a good dinner, and I am here again 
as the negative of this proposition, and there are a few things that the gen- 
tleman has stated in his last remarks that demand attention. 

At first, I want to notice some things that he stated before in his former 
speech, with regard to the Free Masons, relative to the word "identical." He 
wants to know if th Free Masons in England are not the same as the Free 
Masons here. I say yes. Why ? Because they were established at the same 
time and the same place, and the Free Masons here take their origin from, 

28 



and came originally from, the old mother country. Therefore, it devolves 
Mr. Willis to prove his church, or the Church of Christ that he belongs to. 
He made quite a quibble because I said he had no church. I think he has no 
church myself, but I did not expect him to own it himself. It devolves upon 
him to prove that the church, of which he is a member, was organized at the 
same time and place that the gospel church of the New Testament was or- 
ganized; and that he descended directly from that, or that he is the same 
identical church. That is what he is here for. The Free Masons will take 
care of their origin. It is for Brother Willis to take care of his church's 
origin, and if he can prove that his church descended directly in an unbroken 
line from the mother church he is all right; and if not, he is all wrong. You 
are here to prove identity, sir. 

Now, in order that we may get started to clearing up some of the mists 
that have been thrown before your eyes, we want to begin with the origin 
of the gentleman's church. Relative to the misrepresentations that he has 
so often made, I shall have but little to say. When he misrepresented me 
with regard to the church in the Acts of the Apostles, that is before the 
people. I asked him the question as to whether there could be keys used 
before the building was established; if there could be a church opened on the 
day of Pentecost without there was a church established. He said there was 
a church there. I said so, too, and. said it originated before the day of 
Pentecost, or Peter could not have used the keys to open it. He misrepre- 
sented me when he stated I said there was no church at Pentecost. After 
this debate I shall leave it for you to judge about that. There is a church 
at Pentecost, I say. He is trying to get me to come onto my proposition, 
which comes up day after tomorrow. 

In regard to the word Zion, we will attend to that in the proper place. 
You need not be uneasy about that; we will attend to that. Now notice in 
his next statement he says in his speech that the keys will not open anything 
that does not exist. Therefore, the church existed before Peter used the 
keys. But Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost; therefore, the church 
existed before the day of Pentecost. That is where he stands. He says the 
one hundred and twenty that were assembled in the upper room constituted 
the embryonic church. Then, if that was the case, when did they become 
members of the church ? Did Peter receive the one hundred and twenty that 
day ? I called for the proof. He says that the pronoun, "Then the Lord added 
daily unto them," refers to the one hundred and twenty. I call for the 
grammatical construction on that. I say it does not do it. It is in open 
violation of the laws of language to make the pronoun call back for one 
hundred and twenty. I say it is in opposition to grammatical construction — 
if they were in the upper room, as he says, and I call for the grammatical 
construction of it to see whether we got it or not. 

Then again, Coll. 1:18, we will refer to that again, as he has referred 
to it in every speech and I have replied to it in every speech. "And He is 
the head of the body, the church; who is the beg'nning, the first born from 

29 



the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence." That is not 
the church that you are a member of, and it remains that you prove your 
identity with that church. That is what you are here to do, Brother Willis. 
I am here to deny that you are any part or particle of that church, and you 
are here to prove that you are not only a part of it, but that you are that 
Church of Christ, and I deny that you are any part or particle of any New 
Testament church, or that you are that identical church. Answer me in 
regard to the meaning of the word church. I said the term church, an 
ecclesia, and all of these terms by which the church is known in the Bible, 
are general terms, but in his first speech he said that the word ecclesia 
applied to the local congregations, and I say that the word church does not 
in the sense of the Divine church, and I said that the word church does not 
come from the term ecclesia, and I gave you the word from which the 
English word comes. iN'ow he has got something to do along there, and I 
say all of the names he applies to the church here are general terms appl'ed 
to the whole family of builders, and there is not a specific term in them 
outside of the one family of believers. When he speaks of a specific church 
he speaks of it as Galatia, the church at Galatia, the church at Lystra, and 
Ephesus and Phillippi. They are specific names; but when he speaks of the 
family of God, the kingdom of God, he has reference to no family cf be- 
lievers throughout Christendom. I say it does not have the meaning that 
Brother Willis applies to it. He says I have got no church. I don't think 
he has either. He said I said the Church of Christ was not a gospel church. 
I asked him the question back there, is Christ in the church? Was Christ 
in the old church back there? Did they have any oridnances? Did they 
have a priesthood ? Did they have officers ? Can a church having ord nances 
and priesthood, officers and Christ in it be anything but a gospel church? 
That is what I ask. I say the church of which he is a member, exclusive of 
the Baptist church, or the Methodist church. I say it is not a gospel church. 
I say the church which Brother Willis represents today, the church on which 
he stands as a member — and he boasts of the records he brings here — I did 
not dispute either one of them. So far as taking the membership and Church 
of Christ, they may take that name; but calling sugar salt doesn't make it 
salt. It is st'll sugar, call it what you please. The church of which he is a 
member — call it the Church of Christ, and I deny that it is a church of 
Christ, or any part of it. Now you have get that flat-footed, and it remains 
for him to prove that it is identical and the same church that he says was 
built on the day of Pentecost. I am going to be understood on this th'ng 
and I do not intend these people shall go away with a misrepresentation on 
their minds. 

Now, with regard to the question I gave him, whether that was the 
Church of Christ back there, with Christ in it, with the ordinance in it, with 
the priesthood in it, sacrificing at the altar, Christ as their leader, with the 
ordinances in it — I ask him was that the Church of Christ and he said "No," 
plainly. Now he turns to Heb. 3:1, with regard to that "Wherefore, hold 

30 



brethren, partakers cf the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High 
Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to Him that ap- 
pointed Him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was 
counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded 
the house hath more honor than the house. For every house is builded by 
some man; but He that built all things is God." Now, if he applies this to 
the church, if that church was built there, then it is God's. God buiit it; 
Christ was in it; Moses was a part of it; Moses was a chosen leader in it. 
Therefore, it is a church of Christ. 1st Cor. 5. Do you mean the 1st? 

(Brother Wills.) No, sir, the 2nd; the latter part of the chapter; 5th 
chapter, 18th verse. 

(Elder Laslie.) "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us 
to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia- 
tion; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not 
imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word 
of reconeiliaticn. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though 
God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christs's stead, be ye reconciled 
to God. For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we 
might be made the righteousness of God in Him." Now, Brother Willis in- 
troduces this scripture to prove God authorized these peopie to set up a 
church. Does that mean to organize and build and set up ? Turn to your 
lexicons and see. They were ambassadors for Christ, and through them, He 
says, "as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, 
be ye reconciled to God." God Almighty in that has declared the men of the 
ministry. "We beseech you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 
That Scripture does not prove, and there is not a thread of evidence in it 
where God Almighty authorized the disciples to begin a church, and I defy 
any one to show where the word reconcile means to build, to establish or to 
set up; yet he introduced that scripture to prove it. 

Eph. 2:14-15, he said the middle wall of partition was broken down on 
the cross. I believe that men's hearts are purified by faith. The middle 
wall was broken down. W,hen? He says at the cross. Very well, what was 
the purpose of that? That He might make of the twain one new man. It 
was broken down then. The Jew and Gentile were thrown together. He 
made of the twain one new man. I said this all took place before Pentecost; 
that the middle wall of partition was broken down before Pentecost. He 
says it was broken down on the cross, and I say so, too. I say the reconcilia- 
tion was made on the cross, and he says so too; and, therefore, it was not 
broken down on the day of Pentecost. The wall of partition was not with- 
drawn on the day of Pentecost. It did not mean one new man on the day of 
Pentecost if it was done on the cross, and Brother Willis says it was done 
there. 

Tit. 1:4-9. Here are some scriptures he never made any argument on, 
and quoted them as fast as he could speak them. Now I introduce this one. 
Tit. 1:4-10: "To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy 

31 



and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. For 
this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. 
If any be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, 
not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hos- 
pitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the 
faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine 
both to exhort and to convince the gainsay ers. For there are many unruly 
and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision." They 
have elders in this church. Therefore, it is the identical church Brother 
Willis belongs to. The Methodist church has elders'; therefore, it is the 
identical church. The Presbyterians have elders; therefore, it is the identi- 
cal church. The Baptists have elders; therefore, they are the identical 
church. Now don't you see how the thing goes? I deny that the leadership 
cf the church Brother Willis belongs to has any Bible authority whatever. 
He is here to prove that it has. I say here without fear of contradiction that 
you have not an officer in your church that is there on any Bible authority 
whatever. You may give them the names and take all the names you please 
and yet you are no part of the church of Christ. 

Now let us see where you come from. Iwill read from one of your own 
men. I will read from Longan on the Church of Christ. If he is not a 
irinister of the Church of Christ it is a Campbellite lie and not a Baptist He. 
I bought it from people of your own church and they represented it as your 
own book, and they were members of your organization. I will read it and 
back it up with other works. I knew you would kick on it, as far as that is 
concerned. If you don't want the people to shove these books in your face 
don't put them out and sell them. 

(Brother Willis.) I rise to a point of order. That book was published 
by the Christian Publishing Company in St. Louis and has no connection with 
the Church of Christ for which we stand identified. 

(Elder Laslie.) I say I bought this book from those as represented, 
and I wrote them and asked them to send me a history of the church called 
the Church of Christ, and I explained it. I said "They are not Christians; 
they don't claim to be Christians of the liberal body of the Christian Church," 
and this is what they sent me. 

(Moderator Hines.) Read on the fly leaf. 

(Elder Laslie.) "The day is sure to come when it will not be otherwise; 
but it is scarcely here yet. God grant it may not be far distant. But if 
the chronicles of those tumultuous times have correctly reached us, our 
fathers, as I have said, did not go out of their own accord. They would 
feign have suffered much, rather than cut loose from the dear fellowship 
of Christ, and set adrift from their ecclesiastical moorings. They did not 
shoot off at all; they were driven off." 

Now I charge you in the face of all history; I charge you in the .face of 

32 



Alexander Campbell, in the face of all history. You deny the name Disciples 
of Christ. That is the history of the D"sciples of Christ. 

Now again, in the Religious Encyclopedia, page 462, "The rise of this 
society, if we only look back to the drawing of the lines of demarkation be- 
tween it and the other professors, is of recent origin. About the commence- 
ment of the present century,, the Bible alone-, without any, human addition in 
the form of creeds or confessions cf faith, began to be plead and preached 
by many distinguished ministers of different denominations, both in Europe 
and America. 

"With various success, and with many of the opinions of the various 
sects imperceptibly carried with them from the denominations to which they 
once belonged, did the advocates of the Bible cause plead for the union of 
Christians of every name on the broad basis of apost.es' teachings., But it 
was not until the year 1823 that a restoration of the original gospel order 
of things began to be plead- in the periodical, edited by Alexander Campbell, 
of Bethany, Va., entitled,- 'The Christian Baptist.' - - - - ,% - a , , - „ 

"He and his father, Thomas Campbell, renounced the Presbyterian sys- 
tem, and were immersed in the year 1812. They, with the congregations 
which they had formed, united with the Redstone Baptist Asscciation; pro-r 
testing against all human creeds as bonds of union, and professing subjection 
to the Bible alone. i This union took place in the year 1813."- 

Again, "Alekander Campbell soon became chiefiy and prominently 
known as the recognized head of a new religious- movement, the purpose of 
which was /to restore primitive Christianity in all its simplicity and beauty. 
Out of this movement has grown a people who chose to call themselves 
Christians, or disciples, now numbering not less than five hundred thousand 
in the United States." (Segars' "Life of Campbell," , page 25.) 

Again we find, "This denomination is sometimes known by the name of 
Christians. It was founded by Alexander Campbell about the year 1827." 
(Fleetwood's "Life of Christ," Appendix.) . __ 

Later on, being excluded from, the Baptist church, he founded, in 1827, 
a separate body, first known as Campbe.lites. (Standard American Encyclo- 
pedia, Vol. 2,- page 824.) 

Are you known as Church of Christ ? . . 

"Alexander Campbell, an American theologian, was born at Shane's 
Castle, Ireland, in June, 1788. After attending Glasgow University, he came 
to the United States and served as pastor of a Presbyterian church, in 
Washington county, Pennsylvania. Later he became a pastor, and. as early 
as 1810 he adopted the Bible as the sole recognized creed of his., church. But 
it was not till 1827 that he founded the Disciples of Christ, , a new church 
,that grew rapidly and now has a large membership Jn America and foreign 
countries. His followers are also- known as Christians, Church of Christ and 
.Campbe.lites. In 1841 Mr. Campbell founded and became the first president 
of Bethany College, at Bethana, W. Va., which has 280 students. Besides 

33 



his work as pastor and teacher, he founded and edited the denominational 
organ of his church. He died March 4, 1866." 

I understand this is nothing new so far as the cabling in question of this 
work is concerned. The fact is that these people are not members of the 
Gospel church — here is another quotation I want to read. Here is the record 
made out by your own people right there. He does not understand that the 
first word begins with a big D — Disciples of Christ. The Standard American 
Encyclcpedia is not published under the influence of any church. I am ready 
to produce every work that I introduce, and I hope the gentleman will do the 
same thing. 

(Moderator Jones.) Your time is up. 

(Elder Laslie.) I want to thank you for the splendid attention you 
have given to these arguments. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen. I rise 
to close the discussion for today, so far as my part is concerned. 

I want to notice first some of the things my opponent said in his last 
speech. He says first, every Mason is the same as in America; that it, every 
Mason in England was the same as in America. Thank you for that admis- 
sion. Remember, I made the statement that though two thousand years may 
intervene between the organization of the Masonic institution in England 
and in America, we identify it as being the same institution because of the 
fact they wear the same name, they subscribe to the same law; therefore, 
it is the same identical institution, and now he admits it. No succession; 
identity in name; identity in teaching; identity in practice. That is the idea. 

He made a little light of me, saying I had no church. But Christ has a 
church in the world and it is going to stand, though heaven and earth may 
pass away, His word will not pass away. All hell cannot prevail against 
His church. He wanted to know if I can prove that this church came out 
of an unbroken line. I do not believe in succession; neither do the Mission- 
ary Baptists. I have a Cutting here. I will read you a statement from him. 
He is a good Missionary Baptist, all right. On page 14 he says: 

"There are those who regard it as the chief and distinguishing province 
of Baptist history to trace the stream of our sentiment from the primal 
foundation in the churches of the apostles, down through successions of 
organized communities, to the Baptist of modern times.. I have little confi- 
dence in the results of any attempts of that kind, which have met my notice, 
and I attach little value to inquiries pursued for the pre-determined purpose 
of such demonstration." 

(Elder Laslie.) From whom are you reading? 

(Brother Willis.) From Cutting, page 14. He is a good Baptist. So 
much for apostolic succession. There was a church at Pentecost but it was 
in existence before Pentecost. When was it born now, Elder? Day after 
tomorrow you will try to find that church. When was it born? What was 
its name? We will see about that a little later on. Zion! He says, "I will 

34 



house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch 
as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house. For 
every house is builded by some man; but He that buildeth all things is God. 
And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony 
of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a Son over His 
own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the re- 
joicing of the hope firm unto the end." Whose house do you belong to, 
Elder, to Moses' house or the Lord's house? Do you belong to the church 
of Moses or to the church of Jesus Christ? I don't believe you belong to 
either. Oh, yes, reconciliation. 2nd Cor. 5:18-21. The Elder misunderstood 
me here, I think. I wi 1 not accuse him of misrepresenting me. His idea 
was that I quoted from the 5th chapter of 2nd Cor. here to prove by the use 
of the term reconciliation, organization. I never used the word reconciliation 
in that sense. No, sir, I did not. I refer to this to show the authority that 
was delegated to the apostles. Now, do you get that? Read the 19th to 
21st verse: "That God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, 
not imputing their tresspasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the 
word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though 
God did beseech you by us: w pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to 
God. For He hath made Him to be s'n for us, who knew no sin; that we 
might be made the righteousness of God in him." The word reconciliation 
was confided to the apostles in order to prove that they possessed authority. 
If I understood him he questioned the apostle Peter having authority to 
build, and Jesus Christ says, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth sha'il 
be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed 
in heaven." Matt. 16:19. He had power to bind and he had power to loose. 
The middle wall of partition broken down at the cross. The enmity 
between the Jew and Gentile is taken away. Read 3rd chapter of 2nd Cor. 
Paul says, we are able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter of 
th law, for the letter of the law killeth, but the spirit giveth life. We are 
not under the Old Testament, but under the gospel under the New Testa- 
ment; sealed and dedicated with the blood of Jesus Christ. I wi.l ask the 
question, Elder, what is a new man? Now there is no dodging around. 
Come up to the issue and answer. What is a new man? Eph. 2:14-15; 
"For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the 
middle wall of partition between us (Jew and Gentile); having abolished in 
his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; 
for to make in himself of twain one new man." What is a new man, Elder? 
It isn't an old remodeled church. Tell us in your next speech what that new 
man is. If it isn't a new church, what is it? Tit. 1:4-10. Ordained elders; 
that is the duty of the ministers, ordain elders in every city, in every church. 
That is what they did. Paul's instructions to Titus, to young ministers. 
But, he says, the Baptist church has elders in it. He uses the singlar, 
Baptist church, has elders in it. We will see a little later about that. I 
deny it. I deny the Baptist church having a plurality of elders, because of 

35 



attend to that later on. I will attend to that later." WJiy are you dodging 
around Zion? What is the matter with you? Isa. 28:16 says, "Behold, I 
lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, 
a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste." That corner 
stone is Christ, and that sure foundation is Christ, and there is no other. 
1st Cor. 3:11. Isa. says that foundation is laid in Jerusalem. He will tell 
us after awhile what he thinks about it. When did the one hundred and 
twenty become a church? When they received the Holy Spirit. 

(Elder Laslie.) You have that wrong. When did they come into the 
church ? 

(Brother Willis.) The one hundred and twenty became a nucleus of the 
church in Jerusalem on Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit. W T heri 
they received it they were a church, and hence the three thousand ^ T ere added 
to the One hundred and twenty. Then they were a church. 

He says Acts 2 does not refer to church. Tell us in your next speech 
what it refers to, Elder.' Col. 1:18 — not the church you belong to; it is a 
body of Christ; that is what Paul says about it. "And He is the head of the 
body, the church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that 
in all things He might have the preeminence." It is a body of Christ. That 
is what Paul says about it; the church of Christ. I want it distinctly under- 
stood I do belong to the Church of Christ- and I kn:w by the things that are 
written. He says ecclesia does not apply to a local church. Didn't you say 
that, Elder ? How do you like Thayer ? I will introduce him and see whether 
ecclesia applies to the local church. On page 196 we have this: "The name 
ecclesia is used often t>y Christ here on earth." Matt. 18:17; the whole body 
of Christians scattered throughout the earth collectively, with but one God 
wherever they met. Matt. 16:18. Thayer says it applies both to the local 
church and the general church; that is what Thayer says. 

There is a right smart of this rehashed. He wants to know if Christ is 
in the Jewish church. Yes, Christ was born in the Jewish church by birth of 
the flesh. That is how He got in. 'fie says Willis' church isn't the church 
or any part of it. Mr. W;illis' church! Elder, can't you call me brother once, 
for luck? 

(Elder Laslie.) If you will remember about it, I have called you 
brother, all right. : - ■ ~ J '■ 

(Brother Wi.lis.) I could call you brother. If I would miss you in 
Christ I would hit you in Adam, undoubtedly. Heb. 3, he says, it is God's 
house. Elder, you know that is a play of words. It says it is a house of 
Moses. Sure, it is God's house. The earth and all contained therein belongs 
to film. That is a great play of words — God's house. He is trying to get 
around Moses' house. It is God's house, and it is the house of M:oses, also. 
I will read ft to you again."- All I know about it is what the Book says. 
Heb. 3. "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, con- 
sider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; who was 
faithful to Him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his 

36 



the teachings of the New Testament. Where did you come from, and where 
did you go? I have driven the gentleman away from the Bible, and. you 
have gone to history in the latter part of your speech. Where did the 
dsciples come from, anyway? He took some of those old histories and 
claims he found the leading disciples. Did you ever read Acts 11:26? You 
can find the name discipls in the New Testament. You don't have to be 
digging into old musty histories to find disc'ples. [Disciples were called 
Christians first in Antioch. Acts 11:26. He says in the year 1823 is the 
origin of the disciples. He says the church was founded by Campbell in 
1827. Was it the Church of Christ? If I understand, he admitted the 
Church of Christ in the beginning of this discussion. You do not question 
me being a member of the Church of Christ. My church records are open 
for inspection. You do not question it. Now he says Campbell founded 
the church in 1827. Campbell didn't found anything. He had no more au- 
thority to establish a church than I have, and he did not claim to establish 
a church. No, indeed. He didn't claim it. Since you have gone to history 
1 will give you a little history. Here is a History of Nations, that is genu- 
ine, page 622. 

I will read you a litte history about the General Baptist church while 
you are reading history. This is the Presbyterian historian, Wharry. What 
about him ? Do you like h'm all right ? Page 266, see what he says : "Thus 
among the English, says Dr. Mosheim, "who originated the baptism of in- 
fants, are not called Anabaptists, but Baptists. It is probable that these* 
Baptists originated from the Germans and Dutch, and that they all once 
held the same sentiments with the Mennonites. But they are now divided 
into two general classes; the one called Gneral Baptists, or Remonstrants, 
because they believe that God has excluded no man from salvation by any 
sovereign decree; the other are called Particular, or Calvanistic Baptists, 
because they agree very nearly with the Calvanistics or Presbyterians, in 
their religious sentiments. The Particular Baptists are by far the most 
numerous and have receded so far from the opinions of their progenitor's 
that they have almost nothing in common with the ancient Anabaptists, 
except that they baptize none but adults, and administer the ordinance by 
title immers'on. Their churches are organized on the congregational or, 
independent plan, and they allow professors of religion to take an oath, 
bear arms, and fill pub ic civil offices when required. The General Baptists 
consist chiefly of illiterate persons of low condition; for, like the ancient 
iMennonites, they despise learning.'' 

(Elder Laslie.) We are willing to tsand on our illiteracy. 

{[Brother Willis.) I didn't say it. Wharry said it. You can examine 
the history if you want to. 

(Elder Laslie.) I remind you that the General Baptist history is not 
your proposition. 

(Brother Wi.lis.) Don't be tormented before the time. 

(Elder Laslie.) I am not tormented; I am just amused. 

37 



(Brother Willis.) We will now go to the chart. Officers of the church — 
we are talking about the Church of Christ now. Phil. 1:1. This one verse 
gives the ministers and all the officers in the Church of Jesus Christ, to- 
gether with the members that constitute the body; that is one verse. Perhaps 
I had better read it for you. ;We have got it all here in a nutshell, in one 
verse: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints 
in Christ Jesus which are at Phillippi, with the bishops and deacons." In 
one verse the ministers, the saints, the bishops and the deacons. Eiders, 
qualifications, 1st Tim. 3; Tit. 1. How chosen; Acts 14:23; 1st Pet. 5. 
Deacons, their duty; Acts 6; 1st Tim. 3. 'Ministers called'; Rom. 1; Gall. 1. 
Duty; Mark 16; Gal. 1; 2nd Tim. 4. Read these chapters and you will 
understand. In Gal. 1, you preach the gospel, and there is a threat or a 
curse to any man that preaches another gospel than that he has received, 
even though he be an angel from heaven. We find in the New Testament 
a system of government, in the religious government. I want the gentle- 
man to state — he failed to give a law of religious worship. I asked him how 
he knew he was worshipping God if he failed to lay down the law; so there 
need not be any mistake about it. Meeting; Acts 20-7, on the first day of 
the week. Singing; 1st Cor. 1:14-15; Heb. 2:12. Commanded to read the 
Word of God, 1st Tim. 4:13. Commanded to pray, 1st Thess. 5:17. Com- 
manded to take communion, 1st Cor. 11:24. Contributions; we are com- 
manded to contribute as the Lord has prospered us, with the assurance of a 
blessing; 1st Cor. 16:2. We have the perfection of .believers, 2nd Tim. 2'; 
2nd Pet. 1. We are told how to live, how to direct our lives that we may 
honor Christ and be bright and shining lights in His kingdom that we may 
wield a beautiful influence for good. 

Now, in regard to being anti-organist or anti-missionary; when we are 
opposed to the method by which the missionary society was doing its work 
they say, "you are anti-missionary;" and when we oppose the instrument in 
connection with a praise service they turn and hollow "anti." If I am not 
mistaken, the Baptists at one time were anti. Here is something for you to 
think about. The grandest history of the universe, written by twenty leading 
Baptists. Here is what Mr. Newman says, on page 236, talking about 
apostolic churches: 



(Elder Laslie.) Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I want 
to talk to you just thirty minutes about as quick as you ever heard it talked 
in your life. 

The first thing I want to call your attention to is the fact that the 
Missionary Baptists are not in this discussion. I am a General Baptist. 
The Missionary Baptists are ttbt in this discussion, and are unable to fight 
their own battles. This shows to what straits a man can be driven. It 
shows exactly to what straits a man can go, to set up a straw man and 
knock him down. Suppose he should gain a victory over the Missionary 
Baptists in this entire discussion, would this affect the General Baptists? 

38 



What good would that amount to, anyway? I repat that I am not here as 
a champion of the Missionary Baptists; they are here to "tote their own 
skT.et," and have always done it. But I am here to talk to you as the nega- 
tive of this proposition, and I am here to answer every argument that Mr. 
Wilis has made, or Brother Willis has made. I have to be very tender with 
him. He is thin skinned. He lives in the water, you know, and I have to 
be very tender with him. I do not object to calling him brother, but I was 
always taught to "mister" a man, and if he objects to the term "Mr./ I 
do not know — he has "missed her" (take the feminine). 

I want to say again that assertion is not argument. I want you to get 
that. Suppose we take this chart from beginning to end. My church, Matt. 
16:18. Did he attempt to prove that that church spoken of there in Matt. 
16:18 is the church to which Brother Willis belongs to at Shrewsberry? I 
did not deny his being a member of that congregation there. Has he made 
attempt to prove the identity of those two bodies? Then, in another place, 
the Church of God, 1st Cor. 1:2. Has he made any attempt to prove that 
this church is the church to which he belongs ? He has said that that church 
is called the Church of God; therefore, we are identical, when the Church 
of God is not in this proposition. 

Then again, the church of the first born. Did you hear him try to 
prove the identity between his congregation, the congregation that he be- 
longs to, and the church of the first born? Did he make an argument on 
that? He says the Church of Christ is called the church of the first born, 
Heb. 12:23. I have tried to get h'm to demonstrate to me that the churches 
are identical. That is the point; in origin, name, doctrine and practice. He 
began by saying that identity meant the same thing, not likeness. It must 
be the same thing, the same church that was set up on the day of Pentecost; 
yet he tells you that he does not believe in apostolic succession. Then, if 
his church to which he belongs was set up on the day of Pentecost (I do 
not mean that he owns it at all) — the church to which you belong — now if 
he does not believe in apostolic succession ,and you propose to prove thaifc 
the church to which he belongs is identical with the church organized or 
set up on the day of Pentecost, and the churches are the same in every 
respect, now then, there is a job for him to get them together. He must 
take up apostolic succession in spite of everything he can do. I prove, or 
I say for instance for sake of argument, that the General Baptist churdh 
is the same or identical with the first church that ever was organized in 
the United States. Now I say again that identity means the same thing as 
that church organized first in the United States. Common sense will teach 
any one that if it is the same thing, and as Brother Willis says, does npt 
mean likeness, I am not allowed to prove likeness alone, "but I must prove 
it is the same thing descended in an unbroken line from the time of its 
organization until now. There is the point to be shown and he hasn't 
touched it, and has not made an effort to touch it. He has different names; 
therefore, this is "our church;" "this is the Church of Christ." "I belong 

39 



to that clmrch; therefore, they are ident'cal," 1 deny his premises. 1 told 
him plainly that the church to which he belonged was no part of that body. 
He has got to prove that it is, and he has not attempted it. He has tried 
to prove likeness all the way through. I had two girs coming to school to 
me in Butler county, I couldn't tell them apart to save my life. . They went 
to school to me six months and I could tell them apart just as easy the first 
day of school as I could the last day. I could not tell the difference between 
them. Are they the same? Are they not two d'fferent bodies? Were they 
not endowed with two different spirits, and do. they not each live with a 
separate husband today? And yet they were so much a" ike they went to 
school to me six. months and I could not , tell them apart. Likeness is not 
identity at all. There is nothing like identity in it. He is correct when ho 
says identical means the same thing. Now, if it is- the same thing, he has 
to prove it is the same church, because this is what I deny. He cannot 
prove likeness. I might admit it is alike all the way through and deny your, 
succession and beat you. He has not proven any likeness at ail, and I do 
not admit any likeness. There is the point at issue. He says Campbell did 
net found anything. I want to notice a little further. 

This is a historian. Here is the Illustrated Book of all Religions. Here 
is the Church of Christ, that Brother Willis pleases to stand up here and 
defend, "Popularly called the Disciples of Christ, or Campbellites. The 
designation by which this body claims to be known is that of the- Church of 
Christy and the members are designated Disciples of Christ. They object to 
the title Campbe.lite Baptists, but admit their obligations to Alexander 
Campbell, who organized and gave a definite designated form to their now 
large connection." 

(Brother Willis.) Who was that published by? 

(Elder Laslie.) By the Star Publishing Company. Now let us notice 
these 'Christians." "A purely American sect, which first arose about 1803 
in the New England States, in Ohio, Kentucky, and in various numbers in 
the Southern States. Their name is usually pronounced (in a way, of course, 
repudiated by themselves) as if it were written and accented Christ-yans. 
The cause of their origin seems to have been at that time -a weariness, on 
the part of many, of the restraints of church disciples and 'bondage of 
creeds.' As they did not arise from attachment to any leader as the repre- 
sentative of a particular system of belief, and as, in spite of the latitude- 
inarianism formerly professed by most of, their number, and some rapidly 
tending to avowed unitarianism. They practice baptism by immersion, and 
open communion. A United States Christian conference, formed of the'r 
ministers, delegates from the different congregations, was tried, but being 
found unwieldy, they have adopted conferences for the individual States. Of 
course, such conferences can only advise; they have no authority. We sub- 
join a statement of their original constitution, to which they still adhere: 
'The Scriptures are taken to be only rule of faith and practice, each indi : 
vidual being at liberty to determine for himse.f, in relation to these matters, 

■. o 
40 



what they enjoin. No member is subject to the laws of church fellowship 
on account of his sincere and conscientious belief, so long as discipline and 
church censorship but for disorderly conduct. The name Christian to be 
adopted, to the exclusion of all sectarian names, as the most appropriate 
designation of the body and its members. The only condition or test of ad- 
mission, as a member of the church is a personal profession of the Christian 
religion, accompanied with satisfactory evidence of sincerity and piety, and 
a determination to live according to the Divine rule, or the gospel of Christ. 
Each is considered an independent body, possessing exclusive authority to 
regulate and govern its own affairs. They are thus independent in govern- 
ment, powerless in discipline, latitudinarian in belief. They only seem to 
require two things — a moral life, and a declaration that they are a Chris- 
tian, and accept the Bible as your guide." 

There is a church that Brother Will's refers to back in 1803. We have 
had quite a good deal of experience with that church. You can believe it 
or let it alone if you don't want to take it, but if you will cross the river, 
Brother Willis, you will find there is a Union Christian Conference has a 
college at Merona, Indiana. You will find that church today that Brother 
Willis introduced to be older than the church that he belongs to. You will 
find that that church will receive baptism — they won't sprinkle you or pour 
water on you, but if you want to go to them from the Methodist church or 
from the Baptist church by effusion they will receive you. A body living a 
moral character is all they require. I have labored with them and preached 
with them. They are latent on their doctrine. They deny a great deal with 
regard to Christ. A great many of them deny the virgin birth of Christ. 
A great many of them deny the divinity of Christ. You can verify the fact 
if you are ever over there. They are rapidly tending towards unitarianism. 
You took it on yourse.f to introduce these people yourself. I am not going 
to put them on you. But here is your own church; here is the church that 
you profess to belong to, the Church of Christ, by Alexander Campbell. 
Now if that is a lie it isn't a Baptist lie; I didn't tell it. If this encyclo- 
pedia tells the truth it was founded by Alexander Campbell. If Alexander 
Campbell tells the truth it was founded by him. I said according to that 
article that was written by Campbell, it was founded by him. 

(Moderator Hines.) Produce the article. 

(Elder Laslie.) I shall refer you to the book. I understand your plan, 
Mr. Hines. I have every book here. It is the first time my veracity was 
ever impeached. I have never impeached your veracity at all. 

(Moderator Hines.) You have no need to. 

(Elder Laslie.) Whenever you get to poking your fun at me you will 
get it back. So much for that. W)ith regard to the officers in the church; 
with regard to the gospel in the church; with regard to the law of worship — 
all of these things in the church. Brother Willis proposes to assume that 
they are the only people who have the gospel— let him prove it; that they 
are the only people that have elders in the church — let him prove it; because 

41 



they have elders that they are exclusively the Church of Christ. Let him 
prove it. He is on the proving side. I deny it. If he proves that this 
church that he is a member of at Shrewsberry, and these other half dozen 
records, if he proves that these are the same bodies that were organized 
on the day of Pentecost I will accept it. He says he has them, but they do 
not prove anything. I have these histories but he does not believe them. 
He makes this assertion and I do not believe it. I am not here to take his 
assert'on. Whenever he brings me the proof and sets down before me and 
says these Scriptures teach that we are the same people that were organized 
on the day of Pentecost, and proves that, I will answer his argument'; but I 
cannot answer a thing that is not made. I say these Scriptures do not teach 
the identity or similarity of this body that Brother Willis claims he is a 
member of. He is here to prove that it is not only a similarity, but ident'ty. 
Whenever he does that then I have something to do. Then he goes on and 
says the disciples are called Christians. He repudiates Christians when I 
introduced th's book that was published by the Christian Publishing Com- 
pany. Is that consistency? 

He then undertakes to prove that this applied to his own body, the 
body that he belongs to. Now, in the next place, the officers of the church; 
Phil. 1:1. I wi 1 not urge that. Deacons and ministers; Mark 16; Gal. 1:2. 
The law of worship. Now then, other churches have law of worship; other 
churches worship on the same basis and take the Word of God as their 
counsel; other churches take the Bible as the only word. Are not other 
churches identical with the body that was organized as set up on the day of 
Pentecost? Other churches have elders; other churches have deacons; other 
churches have singing. Are they not, according to Brother Willis' argu- 
ment, identical to the church organized on the day of Pentecost, if that is 
identity? The General Baptist Church teaches that the Bible, consisting of 
the Old and the New Testaments, is the only infallible Word of God. We 
worship by singing; we have elders and deacons and worship by singing, 
praying and preaching; the law of worship taken on the Word of the Living 
God. Don't you see, Bible identity is what Brother Willis must prove. 
When he proves similarity he proves that every church represented on these 
grounds is apostolic — when he proves similarity. (Turning to Moderator 
Hines.) Brother Hines, I will suggest that Brother Jones does not interrupt 
Brother Willis when he is talking. I have got the floor now. 

(Moderator Jones.) As you are a moderator, I have not interfered with 
Brother Willis a single time, and Brother Hines has been jawing with you 
back and forth. I arise to a point of order and suggest that Brother Hines 
keep quiet while the argument is being offered. I have acted a gentleman 
in this debate as well as I know how. 

(Moderator Hines.) I just calied his attention when he was reading 
from extracts from authorities, to produce the book. I demanded that he 
produce every one that he refers to, and I shall continue to demand that, 
and that he conduct this discussion upon fair ground. That is what I have 

42 



demanded, and I intend to call his hand every time he introduces authority 
and make him introduce the book and read it. 

(Elder Laslie.) You can't make me do anything. 

(Moderator Hines.)I will show you. I will call you every two minutss. 

(Elder Laslie.) You are too short to do anything. If the brother 
thinks Brother Willis is not strong enough he can help h*m all he wants to, 
if he will take his part of the time. I can take them both with one hand 
tied behind me if they want me to. 

Now with regard to anti-organ, anti-missionary and Missionary Bap- 
tists. He says we are called anti-organ or General Baptists. Why don't he 
make the statement that he was right on that position? Why don't he make 
the statement that the subject of missions is not authorized by the Bible, 
and prove it? Why didn't he say that the Bible excluded instrumental 
music from the church? He has got to prove that the Bible does not 
authorize instrumental music, and he didn't attempt it; and with regard to 
the Missionary Baptists, I said awhile ago that they are not in this discus- 
sion. 

In regard to the Free Masons, he referred to them again. He says "I 
asked Laslie if the Free Masons were a lodge organized in the Un'ted States 
and was identical with the Free Masons organized in England?" He says 
"Laslie admitted it." Did he tell you why. I said "Yes, they are identical." 
Why? Because they come in unbroken succession from England; on the 
same ground you have to prove that your church comes in unbroken succes- 
sion from the Day of Pentecost. The Free Masons come in unbroken suc- 
cession from the old countries in England, and Brother Willis must prove 
that his church has come in unbroken succession from the apostles, accord- 
ing to his argument. He has got a job along here. 

You understand it isn't my business to build. He got off on my propo- 
sition. That is all right. Let him take it any time. I will attend to that 
when the time comes day after tomorrow. There is pienty of time for that. 
I am here to answer his arguments, but I am not here to answer his asser- 
tion; that is not argument at all. 

Isa. 28:1; I want to look at that just a moment. Isa. 28:1. 

(Moderator Hines.) 28:16. 

(Elder Laslie.) "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in 
Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure 
foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste." That foundation 
stone was laid in Zion. I said that it was laid, and say yet that according 
to Isa. and according to the New Testament that stone is the foundation of 
the church, but I say that it is not the church that this brother belongs to. 
There is the point that hurts. He must prove that that is the foundation 
of the church that Brother Wiliis belongs to, and that that church is identi- 
cal with the church that is here spoken of in Isa. It is not Zion that we 
are contending with. I have Zion in my argument as far as that is con- 
cerned, and he will have more trouble with it than he is dreaming of. The 

43 



foundation was laid in Zion. He has got the Missionary Baptists in view. 
I am not a Missionary Baptist, Brother Willis. Understand that, sir. The 
foundation was not laid on the day of Pentecost. The foundation was not 
laid at the house of Cornelius. I want to ask Brother Willis if this expres- 
sion here, "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a 
foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; 
he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also wiil I lay to the line, 
and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail shall sweep away the refuge 
of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place." Now I want to ask 
my brother when that foundation was laid, and I want him to tell us in the 
morning. It was laid and it was laid in Zion. Now he must prove that 
that is the foundation of his church. I deny that he has the right, any right 
or title to the appellation Church of Christ, and he must prove that that is 
a specific term given to the church that you have here. I said the Church 
of Christ was a general term and not a specific term. Nbw, Brother Willis, 
you must prove that it is a specific term, because there are other churches 
that call themselves Church of Christ. All evangelical denominations call 
themselves Churches of Christ, Family of God, the Children of God, Disciples 
of Christ and Christians, Household of God, the Church of the Living God. 
Ail denominations take these appellations in a general sense. He takes this 
in a. specific sense. I deny it. Now he must prove when and where that 
was given, and when he does, to the exclusion of all others. I demand the 
proof. 

He says ecclesia is used collectively and locally. Heb. 3:1; "Wherefore, 
holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and 
High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that 
appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man 
was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath 
builded the house hath more honor than the house." 

I want to thank you for your attention. I am sure I voice the senti- 
ment of all when I say I want to thank you for the most splendid order and 
good feeling we have had today, and I want to repeat in conclusion before I 
sit down, Brother Willis and I are discussing this in the very best of humor. 
I can't stay pretty, but I am keeping sweet. 

(Brother Willis.) You keep sweet and I will keep pretty. 

(Elder Laslie.) My wife says I am sweet and his wife says he is pretty. 

(Brother Wiliis.) I have been engaged in discussions often, and we 
have had the best order here today I have ever had anywhere, and this is 
quite a recommendation to the community. 

Adjourned to meet tomorrow at 9:45 a. m. 



SECOND DAY— SEPTEMBER 14, 1921, 

(Brother Willis,) Brother Moderators, ladies and gentlemen: I am 
pleased with the privilege of meeting you again this morning in defense of 

44 



the proposition discussed on yesterday. I want to say, by way of commen- 
dation, we had the best deportment yesterday on the part of the debatants 
and those engaged in these discussions, and on the part of the audience, and 
I am sure this deportment will continue throughout. I want to say I never 
saw better order among the auditors than on yesterday. This is commend- 
able to the people of this community and adjoining communities. I am sure 
that the good order and deportment will continue upon the part of the de- 
batants today, because on yesterday we agreed and shook hands. Brother 
Laslie has promised to be sweet today and I have promised to be pretty. I 
am going to keep my promise. But, ladies, be careful, don't hand him a 
pickle, or that will spoil it all. 

Now I want first to notice a few things that my brother said on yester- 
day evening in his last speech. There are some things that will not deserve 
notice, but I will follow him in his circuitous route. He has great sympathy 
for the Missionary Baptists. He informed me yesterday evening that I 
wasn't debating with a Missionary Baptist. No, I wasn't disputing with 
them when I referred to them yesterday. I introduced them as my wit- 
nesses; that is all. And I want to inform you, Elder, I am not debating 
with the Christian Church either, so you need not lug that into this discus- 
sion. I will attend to them at the proper time, when we can get a man to 
stick his head up. So stick to the question; stay with the proposition in' 
debate. Ah, he said, "He is a thin-skinned fellow and lives in the water." 
I want to say, Eider, if you belong to the tough hides you are wearing the 
wrong name. It takes water, and much water, to make a Baptist. 

He says Matt. 16:18 is not identical with the church at Shrewsberry. 
How do you know? If it wears the same name, subscribes to the same 
creed, the New Testatment, practices the same things practiced by the dis- 
ciples in the church at Jerusalem. If it isn't the same identical institution 
why not? What we mean by identity; same; not different. Let us suppose 
for a moment that the General Bapt'st churches will pass from the earth, 
every one of them. Suppose in one thousand years from today some fellow 
takes up the General Baptist creed, and I have it and I will introduce it at 
the proper time, and he begins to establish Baptist churches over this coun- 
try by this identical creed, will it be the same Baptist church or churches? 
If not, why not? Now let him meet it. The church of the first born he 
says not identical. The church of the first born and the Church of Christ at 
Jerusalem is the same institution. 

Jesus Christ, first born from the dead. Co 1 .. 1:18. He says ident'cal 
is the same. Thank you. You stay with that. We will need that tomorrow 
or the next day. Identical is the same, he says. Oh, he says, you must take 
apostolic succession. You are forced to take the line of apostolic succes- 
sion. See if you take the line of succession tomorrow, and if you do, if I get 
hold of that chain there will not be enough links left in it to rattle, sir, when 
I get through with it. See how far back he can trace the General Baptists 
tomorrow. See what he will do with identical. He says the General Bap- 

45 



tist Churches are identical with the first Baptist church.; That is neither 
here nor there. We will see whether it is identical with the Church of the 
New Testament. That will be the inquiry tomorrow. 

He referred to two girls like each other and he could not tell them 
apart. They were not the same. He says they were not identical. Were they 
of the same blood, Elder? Were they of the same blood? Paul says in 
the 17th chapter of Acts: "And hath made of one blood all nations of men 
to dwell on the face of the earth." "They object to the name Campbellite." 
We object to it because it is a nick-name, and of course we object to it, and 
they object to the name Randallites too. 

(Elder Laslie.) I call for the proof. You are on the wrong proposi- 
tion. 

(Brother Willis.) He says "I have had a great deal of experience with 
these fellows." And you are having quite a little of experience now with 
these fellows you nick-named. I am not through with you yet. "Camp- 
bell founded the Campbeliite Church." I will give him, or anybody else, the 
hundred dollars, and I have the check already written out, who will produce 
a Campbellite church record. I have the records here, quite a few of them, 
to tell who I represent. You talk about Campbellite church. There never 
was such an institution in the world, and I demand the record. Suppose I 
call in the record there is such an institution as the General Baptist Church. 
He says I wiil dive in the musty records and prove it. You will go to the 
line, sir, and produce the record. The proof of the pudding is the record. 
If I call into question there being such a church as a United Baptist Church 
in existence how will he prove it? He will produce the record. Now let us 
go to the record. I deny there being such an institution in the world. I 
am not a member of it and I do not introduce A. Campbell on anything. 
He isn't authority. The Word of God is the authority in the discussion of 
questions religious. Campbell was a great and good man, but he was not 
great enough and good enough to be my leader. I am not following him; I 
am following Jesus Christ. 

"He assumes that the Church of Christ has the on y elders and officers." 
I never made any such assumption. Elder. Don't put words in my mouth. 
"He repudiated the term Christian." You are mistaken, Elder. I didn't 
charge you with misrepresenting me. Ibelieve it was given by Divina 
authority. Find in Acts 11:26 "And the disc'ples were called Christians 
first in Antioch." "I will take them both with one hand tied behind me and 
whip them." That isn't really worthy of notice, but I said I am going to 
follow his circuitous route. That reminds me of a fellow that I heard of 
that lived in a little town and he got mad at somebody in the town one day. 
There are such fellows in the world. One morning he said, "I can whip 
anything in the town." Nobody took it up. Then he said, "I can whip any- 
body in the county," and nobody took it up, and finally he said, "I can whip 
anybody in the state," and a little fellow stepped up and knocked him down, 
and the fellow who wanted to fight said, "The only trouble with me is I 

46 



covered too much territory." That is your trouble, Elder, you are covering 
too much territory. I weigh 170 pounds myself. So, Mr. Stenographer, 
put that down and let it go in the record. It is filling. 

Music in the church. He says, "Let him prove it." I am not in the 
affirmative. I know the tactics of debaters. I am not on the affirmative 
on the question of music, but I am on the affirmative when it comes to 
singing praises in the Church of God. ;W;e practice it. You are on the 
affirmative on the music question and now you prove it. You stay in your 
place. Now don't misrepresent me and say I am on the affirmative on this 
proposition. I am in the negative on the music question. I deny it being 
scriptural. You are on the affirmative on that. 

Yes, he says the foundation was laid in Zion. Was Zion Jerusalem? I 
have been pressing him in every speech to say whether Zion was in Jeru- 
salem, and he says it was laid in Zion, but he says it wasn't laid in Pentecost. 
Is Zion Jerusalem, Elder? Come on, sir. When was that foundation laid? 
I told him two or three times where it was laid. It was laid in Zion at 
Jerusalem. Isa. 28:16; "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a 
tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation," and the superstruc- 
ture of the Church of Jesus Christ was builded on that foundation. There 
is the stake, Elder. Pull her up. Is Zion Jerusalem ? Let's see if he will 
dodge around in his next speech. Let him come to judgment and tell us 
whether Zion is Jerusalem or not. 

Now there are three things necessary to the church. The very life, 
source of its existence'; Christ's blood; resurrection. How many elements 
enter into the organization of a kingdom? First, territory; second, sub- 
jects; third, constitution; fourth, law; fifth, king. Now I want to call your 
attention to some Scriptures concerning the beginning of the Church of 
Christ and the bginning or going forth of the law of the Lord. Psa. 110:1- 
2-3; "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make 
thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength 
out of Zion!; rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be 
willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb 
of the morning; thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and 
will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." 
"The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion;" Jerusalem. 
Micah 4:1-2-3; "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain 
of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, 
and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it." The 
last days, Elder, refers to the Christian dispensation. Jot that down, there 
is an issue. The mountain of the Lord's house; Micah 4:1-2-3, the mountain 
of the Lord's house. 1st Tim. 3:15, Paul instructing Timothy concerning 
his behavior in the House of God, which is the church of the living God. 
Joel 2:28-29-30-31; "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour 
out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall 
prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see 

47 



visions; and a" so upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days 
will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in 
the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned 
into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible 
day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whoever shall call 
upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered; for in the Mount Zion and in 
Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant 
whom the Lord shall call." 

We go now to the Acts of the Apostles, 1st chaptr, 6-7-8: "When they 
therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at 
this t'me restore again the kingdom of Israel? (The kingdom of Israel was 
not established then.) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know 
the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power. But 
ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye 
shaL be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in 
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." And you shall be wit- 
nesses after you receive that power and you shall begin to testify. Where, 
at Gal lee? 'No. At Phillippi? No. On the mountain? No. But you 
shall begin to bear witness of me at Jerusalem. Here is the stake, Elder; 
here is the beginning, "and unto the uteermost parts of the earth." There 
is the order. Acts 2:1-2-3-4, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully 
come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came 
a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filed all the house 
where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like 
as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them 
utterance." And the 16th and 17th verses, the apostle Peter referring to 
the prophet Joel, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my 
spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and 
your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." 
The apostle Peter refers to this prophesy of Joel, "the last days" as being 
the Pentecost. Let us hear from the apostle Paul in the 1st chapter of the 
Hebrew letter, 1st and 2nd verses: "God, who at sundry times and in divers 
manners spake in time past unto the fathers of the prophets, Hath in these 
last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all 
things, by whom also he made the worlds." "The last days. The last 
days." In these last days. And the apostle Paul was living in them; and 
that was in the year 64 A. D.; and we have in the year 33 A. D. a prophecy 
fulfilled by the apostle Peter, and here we have a statement of the apostle 
Paul that he was living in the last days. And God was speaking to His Son. 
Luk. 24:24-46-47; "Then opened he their understanding, that they might un- 
derstand the scriptures"; this is written in the prophets — what is written? 
"That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Here is the beginning, Elder. 

48 



Repentance and remission of sins preached prior to Jerusalem but not in the 
name of Christ. Acts 8:1-2; "And Saul was consenting unto his death. 
And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which 
was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the re- 
gions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried 
Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. We find that 
the church at Jerusalem was all scattered abroad and the apostles remained 
at headguarters in Jerusalem, where the law went forth in the word of the 
Lord, where the New Testament, the new covenant went into effect and 
these twelve apostles remained in Jerusalem and these disciples were scat- 
tered throughout the provines preaching Christ Jesus was the Son of God. 
He suffered and died and arose again victorious conqueror and crowned king 
of kings and lord of lords, and He is ruling and reigning supremely. Gal. 
4:26-27; "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us 
all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth 
and cry." That is the mother church, Jerusalem. Zech. 1:16; "Therefore 
thus saith the Lord; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies; my house 
shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and a fine line shall be stretched 
forth upon Jerusalem." The Lord is returned to Jerusalem with mercies, 
and my house shall be built in it. 

Now listen. The 2nd chapter of Zch. :10-11-12; "Sing and rejoice, 
daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in .the midst of thee, saith 
the Lord. And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and 
shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt 
know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee. And the Lord shall 
inherit Judah his portion of the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem 
again." Jerusalem was chosen once, and now he shall choose Jerusalem 
again. He has returned to Jerusalem with mercies, and He will build His 
house in it. Take hold of that, Elder. You have got something to grapple 
with. I have a history that gives that. I have a chart here that represents 
the beginning. Jerusalem; Zion, where the church or foundation was laid 
and the Church of Jesus Christ builded. The prophet says, "They returned 
with mercies to Jerusalem and will build a church in it. Here we have the 
prophecy of Isa. 2:2: "And it shall come to pass in the last day, that the 
mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the moun- 
tains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the moun- 
tain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of 
his ways, and we shall walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the 
law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." That prophecy was 760 
B. C. Mark 9:1, Mark says "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of 
them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the 
kingdom of God with power." It did not come into existence then. It did 
come into existence before some that were present did or passed away. In 
the last days, saith God, I will pour out my spirit. Joel 2:28, I read you the 

49 



statement from the apostle Peter saying this fulfillment on Pentecost : that 
Jerusalem was the last days and the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled that this 
was the beginning of the last days of the entire Christian dispensation of 
the last days, found in Acts 1:6-8 in the year 33 A. D. He asks, are you 
going to restore the kingdom to Israel ? It is not for you to know the times 
or the seasons. No, indeed. But you shall be my witnesses after you re- 
ceive the power from on high, the Holy Ghost, "and ye shall be witnesses 
unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and in the 
uttermost part of the earth." Those prophesies all point to Jerusalem; the 
year 33 A. D., and Pentecost, Zion, where the foundation was laid, tried and 
laid, and it is ready for the superstructure, the house of God to be built and 
erected in Jerusalem. I find here in Dan., 603 B. C, a prophecy, 2:44, "And 
in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which 
shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, 
but it sha 1 break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall 
stand forever. Referring, no doubt, to the Babylonian, the Mede, Persian 
and the Roman kings; and we learn that this kingdom was established during 
the Roman kings in Jerusalem in the year 33 A. D. Matt. A. D. 26, we have 
a commission under which John the Baptist was operating. How does it 
read? "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness 
of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.,"' 
Nearby; not yet established, but at hand. After the death of John the 
Christ took up the commission and it is recorded in the 10th chapter of Matt, 
where Christ called twelve men, whom he named apostles, in the year 31 
A. D. John took up his m'nistry in the year 26 A. D.; and He sent them 
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not to the Samaritans, but to the 
lost sheep of the house of Israel. The very same commission, at hand; 
near by. 

I thank you. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brothers and Moderators and Friends: I am happy 
to be before you again this morning to follow Brother Willis in his wander- 
ings, and I want to remind you again that I am not in the affirmative. It 
is my business to follow Brother Willis in his talks and examine the argu- 
ment, if any, that he makes. That is my business. That is all I am here 
for, and that is what I have been doing. Some things he has made use of, 
some statements he has made use of, are not worthy of notice, but as I 
am to follow him it is my business to take them up. 

He said I followed a circuitous route yesterday in my talks. Of course, 
I have to. He is in the lead and I have to follow a circuitous route to keep 
up with him. If he wants me to follow a straight course, let him pursue a 
straight course, which he has not done at all. With regard to those thin- 
skinned fellows, I cautioned him in the beginning. I told him to look out 
when he began his slander. I told him and cautioned him that he had better 
let that alone. Now I am going to say this. This is not my style of dis- 

50 



eussion at all. My style of discussion is to meet a man on his argument, 
and our rules say that everything of an unbecoming nature should be left 
out of the proposition, out of the discussion, I mean. Now then I am going 
to say this, furthermore, to Brother Wil"is and his moderator as well. I sad 
I expected to treat them right, but if they do not want these expressions 
handed back to them they must keep them to themselves. I hope it won't 
occur any more. 

He says with regard to identity, likeness; that it is not different, the 
same; that means identity. That is what he started out with. That is the 
definition he gave at the beginning, that they mean the same thing. I have 
been begging, I have been pleading, I have been almost praying Brother 
Willis to take up that expression, "identical" and prove to this body that 
the church that he belongs to is the same church that he says was organ'zed 
or set up or established on the day of Pentecost. I will repeat the state- 
ments in my first speech, and I made them in my last one. Suppose he 
establishes the church on the day of Pentecost. Suppose he builds it up 
by laying- stone upon stone; then he has to prove that the church to which 
he belongs is that church. That is the job that he has ta do; and he says 
himself that it does not mean likeness; that it does not mean similarity. 
That was his definition, that it meant the same thing. That was his defi- 
nition. Here is where he plunged himself into succession, if it is the same 
thing set up or established on the day of Pentecost. I made my remark 
yesterday evening that the gates of hell had prevailed against the church, 
or he must prove succession. He got up and replied in one of his speeches 
that he did not believe in apostolic succession — church succession. There 
is a difference between church succession and apostolic succession. No one 
but Catholics claim apostolic succession. It must descend of apostolic suc- 
cession one to another until it reaches the church of Rome. Church succes- 
sion of an unbroken line of churches from the apostles until now. That 
you have to prove if you prove your position. These people heard me tell 
him when he made that definition that he had broken his own neck with 
that definition. Had he said in the beginning that by the term identical I 
mean similarity, likeness, feature, form, that would have been an entirely 
different thing, but he said it meant the same, not likeness, not similarity, 
but the same thing. That was what he said. With regard to those girls, 
he said, "Are they the same blood?" There is a similarity. Yes, they are 
the same blood, but they are not the same body. You are to prove the 
identity of the body, my brother. Not the similarity of blood, not the simi- 
larity of doctrine, but the identity of the body, that it was created on the 
day of Pentecost as you say. That is your Own statement, and I begged you 
to take it up and hand.e it. You have tried to prove similarity and you 
condemned it yourself in the beginning and said it did not mean similarity. 
You have eaten your own words. It means the same thing, and in all your 
last speech in trying to prove similarity you failed. 

With regard to covering too much territory, every one present knows 

51 



what called that expression out. He boasted of his weight; he is a heavier 
man than I am. I do not go on my muscle. I am not traveling on my 
muscle, but I am going to say this in all honesty and candor: I have never 
yet seen a man that can make me afraid, intelligently or otherw'se. When- 
ever you think Laslie is afraid, try it. That in all good humor, understand. 
I don't boast of my weight. I weigh 165 pounds, but my debating size is a 
fraction over a ton. That is, from an intellectual standpoint. Now if that 
is the kind of feed you want to feed these people with I think I have as 
much in my dish as you have in yours. The rules say all terms that are 
meaningless and have no reference to the subject, to be left out. I did not 
introduce this muscular business. 

Now let us turn to his Scriptures. He said, "I do not rely on Camp- 
bell," but, my friend, it is not the question as to whether you rely on him, 
but does he tell the truth about your doctrine and about your teaching? 
Does he tell the truth? Do you indorse his doctrine? Do you indorse his 
definition of faith? You brought it up yourself. I am going to ask you 
to get up before this people and tell whether Alexander Campbell tells the 
truth or not. Another thing, I am going to call on you to condemn these 
works as being unauthentic — you refuse to have them — and now I call on 
you for your evidence of your right to condemn them. Whenever a witness 
is impeached he has the right to demand the proof and if you are not able 
to bring up the proof you are accountable. I ask you to bring up the proof 
that J. W. Longan is not of your church. You say he is not? Now I de- 
mand the proof, and if you want to do the fair thing you will take it back 
if you do not prove it, and when a witness is impeached he has a right to 
trial and the man that misrepresents him is required to bring up the evi- 
dence, and if he fails to do it he is responsible for damages. I asked you 
yesterday to take the original and take last verse of your Acts, 2nd chapter 
and the last verse and get the word "church" out of that phrase. You in- 
troduced it. You said "And the Lord added daily unto the church." I say 
to you, sir, that the term "church" is not in that paragraph in the original. 
You get it out. There is the Greek Testament. There is no translation 
there. You take that and get the word "church" out of the last verse of 
the 2nd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Then I ask you to give me a 
grammatical construction where you have the right to make an antecedent 
of the pronoun "they" out of one hundred and twenty, and you are silent 
now. You said they were added to the one hundred and twenty. The text 
says "they were added to them." If that word "they" means one hundred 
and twenty I want you to give me a grammatical construction and show its 
meaning, and I still demand it. If you don't do that your proposition falls 
on your own proof text. If it does mean that the translation will show it, 
and if it does not mean that your proposition falls. It makes no difference 
what you may have done. I demand it, and if you don't give it it will go 
down to the public that you failed. He says I don't repudiate the name 
"Christian." Do you belong to the Christian Church then? You say no? 

52 



Take it as you please. He says, "I am not in the affirmative ; you are in 
the affirmative on every assertion you make. 'Whenever you assert a thing 
you stand behind it and are bound to prove that assertion or take it back. 
You have no right to make an assertion without any proof. You are bound 
to prove every assertion you make. 

Now we will turn to some of his Scriptures. Psalms 110, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. 
"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine 
enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of 
Zion; rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing 
in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the 
morning; thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will 
not repent. Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. The 
Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. 
He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead 
bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. He shall drink of 
the brook in the way; therefore shall he lift up the head." Therefore ,the 
church to which I, T. D. Wiillis, belong, was organized on the day of Pente- 
cost. This is his text. He made no argument on it at all. He read it. 
Now let us see what it means. The first verse refers to the kingdom, 'The 
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine 
enemies thy footstool. "Did, Brother Will's tell us when it took place? 
We await the answer. "The Lord -shall send the rod of thy strength out of 
Zion." Was he a priest when he went out of Zion ? The rod of his strength 
— was he a priest when he went out of Zion? Then again, "Rule thou in 
the midst of thine enemies." Was he a ruler? Did he have a kingdom to 
rule, a people to rule? lid he possess the rod of strength? Did he go out 
of Zion? Zion here means Jerusalem; it don't mean it everywhere. I told 
you I would take it up in the proper time. It is like the old woman was by 
the mince pies. She made a lot of pies and some of them were mince and 
some were not mince, and she marked all of them "T. M," and when asked 
why she marked them in this way she said, "T. M. stands for 'tis mince, 
and T. M. stands for 'taint mince." Some were mince and some were not 
mince. So Zion means Jerusalem sometimes and sometimes it does not. 
Here it means Jerusalem. Brother Willis wanted me to answer whether 
Zion means Jerusalem, and he gave it in an unqualified sense. I understood 
his meaning and his idea in the matter. I told him then I would answer in 
the proper time. Now let us continue looking at this chapter: "Thy people 
shall be willing in the day of thy power." Did he have a people there? 
Did he possess the right of power then? Was he in Zion then? Did he 
have a people then ? Did he have a kingdom to rule then ? This was before 
Pentecost, my brother. "Thy people should be willing in the day of thy 
power, in the beauty of holiness from the womb of the morning; thou hast 
the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art 
a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." How long was Melchi- 
zedek a priest? Without the beginning of days; without the end of life; 

53 



without father or mother, yet this man brings up an idea trying to prove to 
these people that there was no priesthood until Christ ascended to His 
Father when his own text says he was a priest after the order of Melchi- 
zedek, when Paul says he had no days from the beginning of life, and with- 
out father, without mother. "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike 
through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen; 
he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over 
many countries. He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall he 
lift up the head." Was it done before or after Pentecost ? Now let us 
look at Michah. 4:1, 2, 3, "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that 
the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the 
mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow 
unto it." Does that mean Jerusalem? "In the top of the mountains," does 
that mean Jerusalem? That is plura 1 , my brother. In the last days it 
shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be 
established in the top of the mountains. Tell these people where Jerusalem 
is situated. Tell us whether the plural, mountains, shall be applied to Jeru- 
salem or not. I am taking your own text. Te 1 us whether Jerusalem is 
plural or whether singular. "And it shall be exalted above the hills; and 
people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and 
let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the G|od of 
Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways." Did they have reference to the 
church?. If so, there was a church there and it was called the house of the 
God of Jacob; "and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his 
paths; for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from 
Jerusalem." Does Zion and Jerusalem mean the same place? Did the law 
go forth from Jerusalem or Sinai? "The law shall go forth of Zion, and the 
word of the Lord from Jerusalem." There is something for you to do, sir. 
Then again. 1st Tim. 3:15, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know 
how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church 
of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." "But if I tarry long, 
that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house 
of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the 
truth." If any one can find in that Scripture a single thought, or thread, 
or idea relative to the establishing of the church or founding of the church 
of the living God I would like to hear him say so. Has Brother Willis in- 
troduced a text to show that? It remains for him to show what reference 
it has to the foundation of the church or the building or establishment of 
the church. What is the truth about the matter? "But if I tarry long, 
that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave in the house of God," 
then the next definition what the house of God is. It is the pillar and 
ground of the truth. These two constitute the text that is exactly what 
Brother Willis would preach from if he were taking that for a text. There 
are only two thoughts in the text. First, how Timothy should deport himself 
in the house of God and, second, what the church of God is, the pillar and 

54 



ground of the truth. It is the support of the truth and only the pillars, and 
what is needed today by mine, and the church that Brother Willis repre- 
sents — I believe you will agree with me that what the church needs today, 
and the world needs today, is for the pillars to be stronger to bear up the 
truth. It is not the truth — listen to what I am going to say. It is. not the 
truth today that the majority of the people want, but it is the truth that the 
world looks to the church for, and the church should have the strong pillars 
bearing up the truth of the living God. There is the text laid down in that 
Scripture. 

Now, in the next place, Joel 2 :28-31. That has reference to the prophecy. 
Let us see what he says: "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will 
pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall 
prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 
And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I 
pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the 
earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into 
darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of 
the Lord come." Did that take place before the day of Pentecost? Was 
that since the pouring out there on the day of Pentecost? When was it? 
When did this take place? Listen: "I will pour out my spirit upon all 
flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall phrophecy, your old men shall 
dream dreams, your young men shal 1 see visions: And also upon the servants 
and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will 
shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of 
smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, 
before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come." Now, I want to 
ask you, brother of mine, in all candor, whether or not these signs ushered 
in the day of Pentecost? I want to ask you in all candor to consider what 
this has reference to. This has reference to the great and terrible day of 
the Lord, into which he poured out His life for the children of men, in the 
which He bore our sins; was acquainted with our sorrows and our griefs; 
was wounded for our transgressions; was bruised for our iniquities and the 
chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed; 
then the sun was darkened; the moon was turned into blood; this rock- 
ribbed earth of ours rocked to and fro as a drunken man; and Pilate said, 
"You have crucified a God as I believe)" and Jesus says on the cross, "My 
God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" This has reference to the 
crucifixion and to our Lord and ! Sav:or Jesus Christ. Now when was the 
Spirit poured out on the apostles? In a miraculous power. Was that the 
first time they received the Spirit, when Jesus breathed into them the Holy 
Ghost? They received the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. At the 
house of Cornelius they received it again. The Jews here were received 
into the family of God on the day of Pentecost. The Gentiles are received 
here at the house of Cornelius. So the Holy Spirit is poured out unto all 
flesh. We find that there they spake with tongues. Now I am going to 

55 



ask if the church was organized on the day of Pentecost, why wasn't the 
Gentiles received into it? Was it the fulfillment of the mission of Jesus 
Christ in the breaking down of the wall between the Jews and Gentiles until 
the Gentiles were received into the church, and they were not received into 
the church until after the day of Pentecost. The Jews could not have been 
received into a church unless it was existing. Christ was King of His 
church. John the Baptist came preparing the people for Him. They learned 
that the kingdom of heaven is at hand here and now. But more of this 
further on. 

I am like the man was by the girl riding a bicycle when I go to put on 
these glasses. When bloomers first came around there was a place up in 
the east called Warem. A young lady was riding her bicycle and she had 
on bloomers and she came to the fork of the road and didn't know which 
road to take, so she stepped off her bicycle and said to an old man who was 
there, "Is this the way to Warem?" The old gentleman says, "I don't know, 
Miss, I never seen any before, but if there is any other way to wear 'em 
I would wear 'em that way." 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear 
before you in the investigation of the proposition. I want to notice some 
things that my brother said. The first thing, he challenges me to say or 
show where the General Baptists were called Randallites. All right. I will 
read from one of his own histories, on page 58. Free Will Baptists: "This 
denomination appeared for the first time, as organized and distinctive, in 
the year 1780. The causes leading to the separation from the Baptist church 
were two. The first is found in the Armenian tendencies, existing, to a 
limited extent, among some of the early Baptist churches. It is true that, 
generally, the early Baptist churches of this country were Calvanistic, there 
were members, and some ministers, who, having belonged in England to that 
division of Baptists called "General," and who have always been Calvinists, 
and some of them Armenians, brought those views with them and sought 
to propagate them in the churches of the United States. This would, of 
course, awaken opposition, and in time cause just such separation as led 
to the denomination under consideration. * * * * Mr. Randall was ordained 
in March, 1780, and on June 30th, following, he organized in New Durham, 
N. H., the first Freewill Baptist church. Like all new sects, terms of re- 
proach were used in describing them. They were called Randallites, General 
Provisioners, New Lights and Freewillers, the last of which has clung to 
them and which they have accepted, being known as Freewill Baptists." 
(Histories of the Nations of the World.) 

Ah, he says, "I had to go a circuitous route in order to follow him." 
Yes, I had to be a little circuitous in the route in order to answer you with 
the things that you introduce in this discussion. Ah, he says, "I want to 
keep slang out of it." He don't like slang. Who introduced that question 
on thin skin? Did he introduce that himself? I have a right to reply. He 

56 



accepts the dfinition "identical;" the same, and he says of the girl story, 
he says, "Yes, they were the same blood, but not the same body." No, they 
were not the same body. A church in the twentieth century that is organized 
according to the New Testament is the same identical body; the Church of 
Christ in Jerusalem the same identical body because it is wearing the same 
name and teaching the same doctrine and practicing the same thing. He 
accepts the word "identical" as being the same and not different. He says, 
"I don't go on my muscle." I would like to know how you travel, Elder, if 
you do not travel on your muscle. He says, "I weigh 165 pounds, but my 
debat'ng capacity is over a ton." Yes, he is large in his debating capacity. 

Does A. Campbell tell the truth ? I am not going to question A. Camp- 
bell's veracity. You can if you want to. A. Campbell was not inspired, and 
that is the reason I do not follow him. The apostle John, in writing about 
the contrast between the witness of man and, the witness of God, said the 
witness of men is great, and the witness of God is greater. Who is the 
greater witness, Elder, in this discussion? Where is your right to condemn 
Campbell as a witness? He did not speak by inspiration, and that is the 
reason we reject him. The apostles were inspired and, therefore, they began 
to bear testimony at Jerusalem and Samaria and Judea and the uttermost 
parts of the earth. They were witnesses, and chosen for that special pur- 
pose, and they shall be witnesses in this case. 

"Added to them." Let him give a construction of "added to them." That 
is your business to give a construction. If "them" does not refer to the one 
hundred and twenty, what does it refer to ? You give the construction, please. 

(Elder Laslie.) It is Brother Willis' own proof text, and the laws of 
debate demand that he explain his own proof text. You can explain it if 
you want to, and if you don't want to, you can let it alone. 

(Brother Willis.) I said the three thousand were added to the one 
hundred and twenty and were a nucleus of the church. 

(Elder Laslie.) I say it is not so, and it remains for you to prove it. 

(Brother Willis.) It remains for you to prove it isn't so. 

(Elder Laslie.) I have nothing to deny. 

(Brother Willis.) He says, "Do you belong to the Christian church?" 
No, I don't belong to the Christian church, but I do not repudiate the name 
Christian, but the name Christian church cannot be found in the Book of 
God; the name Christian is not used with respect to designating the church. 
It is used in an individual sense, and used but three times in the New 
Testament. Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1st Pet. 4:16. Used as individual once and 
refers to individuals and never used to represent the church and, therefore, 
you cannot find the name Christian church in the Bible. Psa. 110:1-2-3 — 
therefore, the church to which Willis belongs is identical. Elder, you missed 
the line of argument entirely. I referred to Psa. 110 to show you that Zion 
was Jerusalem and that was the beginning. David says the rod of strength 
goes out of Zion. You missed the line of argument entirely, Elder. Was 
he priest when he went out of Zion? Zech 1:16 says that the Lord will 

57 



return to Zion with mercies and he will build His house in it. When did the 
Lord return to Zion and Jerusalem ? He returned in Spirit after He ascended 
to heaven and became head of the church. He was crowned King of Kings 
and Lord of Lords. He returned to Jerusalem in Spirit on the day of 
Pentecost, and hence He returned with mercies and the house was built in 
Jerusalem — Zion — according to promise and according to prophecy. 

Micah 4:1-2-3; "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the 
mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the 
mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto 
it. And many nations shall come, and say, "Come, and let us go up to the 
mountain of the Lord, and to the house of God of Jacob; and He will teach 
us of His ways, and we will wa.k in His paths." I quote this to prove that 
the last days referred to the Christian dispensation; the mountain of the 
Lord's house being establ'shed in the top of the mountains, and that referred 
to 1st Tim. 3:15 to show that the Lord's house referred to the church of God. 
Does Zion in Jerusalem mean the same place? Yes, in Isa. 28:16, it means 
the same place. He said it sometimes means Jerusalem. Oh, we have been 
after you in every speech. In Isa. 28:16, come to judgment. Does Zion 
mean Jerusalem? If not, what does it mean? 1st Tim. 3:15, "The house 
of God. which is the church of the living God," that was established on the 
top of the mountain. Joel 2:28, on the last day, saith God, "I will pour 
out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall 
prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see 
visions." Did this take place before Pentecost? Not according to your 
argument. As I understand you, this took place at the cross of Christ, in 
the death of Christ. Then you know more about it than Peter knew. Peter 
quotes in Acts 2 as being filled on this day. I deny those things taking place 
at the cross. Then he refers to Acts 10, Acts 11 of the Gentiles receiving 
the Holy Spirit. The gospel was introduced to the Gentiles eight years 
after Pentecost, in the year A. D. 41, in fulfilment of prophecy. "While 
Peter yet spake these words (Acts 10:44-45) the Holy Ghost fell on all them 
which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were 
astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also 
was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with 
tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 'Can any man forbid 
water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, 
as well as we?'" In Acts 11:14, "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou 
and all thy house shall be saved/' In the 15th verse and same chapter, "And 
as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." 
Us who? The apostles. So we have these associated with Pentecost, the 
beginning, "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." So, 
Brother, we get back to Jerusalem at the beginning. The stake is driven 
here; pull it up. The road went from Zion — Jerusalem — at the beginning. 
The church was established in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the beginning of 
the last days of the Christian dispensation. The Holy Spirit came and 

58 



made its abode in the house of God. So the gospel was preached in all is 
fulness in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Peter associates the conversion 
of the Gentiles with the outpouring on the apotles on the day of Pentecost. 
He told his bicycle story just at the close of his speech. 

(Elder Laslie.) That had nothing to do with the speech. That had 
reference to my glasses. 

(Brother Willis.) If he wants to quote slang, all right. I am willing 
to go to the word of God and stay with it ail the way through. I want to 
continue the argument of the beginning. Who were the first members of 
the institution of the Church of Christ? When were they first considered? 
John the Baptist the first member of this institution? No, he was never a 
member of this church; neither did he come to establish a church, but to 
prepare the way of the Lord. Paul answers the church as to the way of the 
Lord, 1st Cor. 12:28; "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, 
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, and after that miracles, then g'fts 
of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." When did He set 
them in? On Pentecost. Where did he set them in. On the foundation. 
Now get the distinction between the structure and the superstructure. Eph. 
2:20, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly 
framed together groweth unto an hold temple in the Lord." Then the 
apostles were the first members of the church. Were they considered mem- 
bers of the church first? No, they were chosen and prepared and tried for 
that place. One of these pilars was a bad pillar in the person of Judas. 
Head Matt. 17:10. One of these pillars in the person of Judas failed to stand 
the test. There was a sound pillar who was a witness, beginning with the 
baptism of Christ to His death, in the person of Matthias. Here we have 
twelve tried pillars put in the foundation on Pentecost, and then the super- 
structure of the Church of Christ began to be builded. Eph. 4:8, He gave 
g'fts unto men. The apostles were first members of the church and the 
three thousand were added unto them. "But this spake he of the Spirit, 
which they believe on him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet 
given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." John 7:39. Dan. 4:13 says 
Jesus received His glory when he went to heaven. When the Spirit came 
Peter said this was that which was spoken of by Joel the prophet saying it 
was fulfilled. Paul said without the shedding of blood there was no re- 
mission. Heb. 9;22. Also it was impossible for blood of animals to take 
our sins. Heb. 10:4. If the church was established there it had the blood 
of animals and was without the actual remission of sins. The law of life 
that governs the church is a new covenant. This new covenant wasn't in 
force until after Jesus died. Zech. 11:10; it was broken that day and taken 
out of the way. Nailing it to the cross; Col. 2:14. Eph. 2:15; and the new 
could not exist as long as the old lasted. "Now that which decayeth and 
waxeth oid is ready to vanish away;" Heb. 8:13. "He that taketh away the 

59 



first, that he may establish the second." Heb. 10:9. So much for the 
beginning. 

Now I want to show it was a brand new institution, and not an old 
patched up concern, but entirely new. A new man and new church. I asked 
the gentleman what was meant by the term "new man." He has not answered 
that. Eph. 2:15; "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law 
of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain 
one new man, so making peace." It has a new name; Acts 11:26, Christ'ans, 
applied to the disciples at Antioch. Matt. 16:18; Rom. 16:16, Churches of 
Christ — new name applied. Individual, Gal. 1:13-23; "But they had heard 
only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith 
which once he destroyeth." A new religion; new church in name and new 
covenant. Heb. 8:6-8; "He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was 
established upon better promises. For finding fault with them, he saith, 
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant." 
Dedicated and sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ. A new law. Rom. 8:2; 
"Made me free from the law of sin and death." A new mediator, Heb. 12:24. 
Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, a new and living way. Heb. 10:19-20, 
by a new and living way which He hath consecrated for us. Rev. 1:15; "And 
from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the 
dead." New members; Heb., 7:28; but the word maketh the Son, who is 
consecrated for evermore. A new sacrifice. 1st Pet. 2:5; "An holy priest- 
hood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 
We find everything new with this church;; brand new; an entirely new 
institution — the Church of Jesus Christ, and the members all Christians. 
Matt. 3:1-2, we have the commission under which John the Baptist operated, 
and he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel preaching repent, 
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus Christ and His disciples, before 
His death, operated on the same commission. Matt. 10. Matt. 16:18 we have 
the promise of Christ that He will build His church, in the year A. D. 32. 
In the following verse that is verified. In the year 33, and in the same year 
32, Luke 12:32, we find this statement: It is your Father's good pleasure to 
give to you the kingdom. In Mark 15:43, in the same year that the church 
was builded in Jerusalem, the kingdom established, one and the same thing. 
We have Joseph of Arimathaea waiting for the promised kingdom in the 
same year. So in the year 22 the prophecies all center. In the year 33 is 
the beginning, and according to the prophecy of Isa. 28:16, we find that the 
foundation was laid and the gospel preached in all its fulness; that Jesus 
was Christ and Son of God and Savior of men, and He died, rose again the 
third morning and ascended to the throne and was appointed King of Kings 
and Lord of Lords, in 33. In the year 60, Rom. 14:17, we find that "the 
kingdom is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the 
Holy Ghost." In Col. 1:13 in the year 64 we find they were being translated 
into the kingdom of His dear Son. Not in the process of building, but in a 
completed and perfected kingdom. In Rev. 1:9 we find in the year 96 that 

60 



John, who wrote the Book of Revia'.ion under the inspiration of God, he says 
to the children, I am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the 
kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. We find before Pentecost the king- 
dom was at hand; it was nearby; but after Pentecost we find the kingdom 
of God's dear Son in existence, and we find it later being in force and men 
and women being translated into that kingdom, heirs of God and joint-heirs 
with the Lord Jesus Christ. Entitled alike to all promises guaranteed by the 
head of the church, and they are all in Christ Jesus. In 2nd Cor. 1:20, we 
find this statement, "For all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in 
Him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." To be in Christ is to be in the 
body of Christ, the kingdom of Christ, of God's dear Son, to be in Christ 
is to be a member of the Church of Christ; one body and mamy members, 
and yet one body and one head. Jesus, the Christ, and one law of the New 
Testament of the Lord Jesus Christ; universal in its proclamation, embrac- 
ing all nations and kindreds of earth. The old covenant embraced one nation 
and one people — the Jews. Not so with the commission under which John 
the Baptist operated. It was a limited commission. They were sent to the 
lost sheep of the house of Israel. After the middle wall of partition was 
broken down, after the enmity was removed between the Jew and the 
Gentile, there was a broad and universal commission went into effect, Matt. 
28:18-19. Mark. 16:16, Christ said go teach all nations and preach the 
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; 
but he that believeth not shall be damned. For a univrsal law, a perfect 
law of liberty, James 1:25, which will make those perfect who will obey it. 
Those who conform to its teaching, it will make them perfect, but that law 
could not make them perfect. 

So we represent the new institution, the Church of Christ, the new law, 
the new mediator, the new priest, the great High Priest who became High 
Priest and was seated on David's throne of power delivered in his hands. 
Then He began to rule and reign supremely, and He is ruling and re'gning 
today. That is the institution we represent, known as the Church of Christ, 
and that is the institution of which I am a member. I call attention to the 
record of the church organized at Shrewsberry, Kentucky, known as the 
Church of Christ, which wears the same name that the church or churches 
in the primitive age wore, subscribed to the same law, the New Testament 
law and bows in humbleness to the same King, the same great High Priest, 
Jesus, the Christ, and I want to say to you, my friends, that it is safe to 
become a member of the church of the New Testament. It is dangerous to 
turn aside and take human creeds and human statements. I want to exhort 
you as honest-hearted men and women to take the New Testament and 
follow it carefully, and follow its precepts and you will enjoy its promises, 
with assurance of everlasting life in the great beyond. 

I thank you for the splendid attention you have given. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brethren, Moderators and Friends: I am before you 

61 



to close this discussion for this morning. I want to notice in the first place 
Brother Willis' statement with regard to Freewill Baptists. If there is such 
a church as Freewill Baptists it originated perhaps with one Benjamin 
Randall ; but every man, I do not care who he is, that is concerned with church 
history at all knows that the General Baptists have never been in connection 
with that denomination at all; work as a separate church and separate 
denomination. In the United States statistics, and in every one, we are given 
that way. He introduced a work here that he calls Baptist History. I deny 
its being a Baptist history, or issued by a Baptist publishing house, and call 
on him for the proof. Here is the title of it: "What the world believes. The 
false and the true. Embracing the people of all races and nations, their 
peculiar teachings, rites, ceremonies, traditions and customs, public and 
private, with a full account of the origin, rise and progress of their various 
sects, historical, doctrinal, statistical and biographical." It is written and 
prepared by a list of men here. I do not know whether they are Baptists 
or not. If I were to put Brother Willis on the stand he would not possibly 
tell whether they were Baptists or not. Edited by George J. Hagan, New 
York. Now it is his own book. This quotes the Freewill Baptists as being 
founded by Randall. I agree with that. We have no connection with that 
whatever. He quoted this as a proof and I asked him, Brother Willis, will 
you accept this as an authentic fact? Here is what it says: 

"This denomination had its origin in an effort made to effect a union 
of the pious of all parties by the ties of a common Chirstian'ty. They regard 
the title, 'Campbellite Baptists,' as a reproach; for though Rev. Alexander 
Campbell was the leader of the movement resulting in the denomination, 
they claim to be the restorers of 'primitive Christianity' and hence object 
to denominating a church by any other designation than is found in 
Scripture. The followers of Christ having been termed disciples that have 
chosen this as their appellative." 

Now there is what it says with regard to you. Will you accept it? It 
does represent Alexander Campbell as being the leader of that body. Now 
swallow that down. It is your own book. 

I want to notice a few things he has stated. He says "I am not going 
to question the veracity of Campbell." Very well, when it comes to what 
Campbell believes, Campbell's statements with regard to what faith and 
repentance are, he has not touched yet. The design of baptism he has not 
touched yet. Regeneration and justification, he has not touched yet, and he 
has only an hour left in which to do the whole thing. When it comes to 
these I suppose he will not question Campbell's varacity. He says, "I do 
not belong to the Christian Church, but I do not repudiate the term Chris- 
tian." I want to ask you if there is any difference between Christian teach- 
ing and the church to which you belong? It is his business to answer these 
questions. 

I call your attention to the questions I asked him in regard to the term 
"church" in the case of the apostles, to the grammatical construction of that 

62 



language. I am going to brand Brother Willis today as being afraid of that 
question, and you will go down as backing out of the construction of your 
own text I am going to pray you, Brother Willis, to give me the gram- 
matical construction of Acts 2:38, how you get the pronoun "them" to have 
for its antecedent one hundred and twenty. I want you to give me the con- 
struction of Acts 2:38 from the original Greek Testament, how you get 
ecclesia to mean church when you said yourself it meant a calling out. The 
word them is a plural pronoun. Teil us whether one hundred and twenty 
is a neuter noun in the Greek, or whether it is a masculine noun. Tell us 
whether "they" is a neuter or masculine noun. Now you tell us. If you do 
not tell that in your next speech my prayer won't be answered. I have asked 
you again. 

He has given us some ear marks. The church has a priest; the church 
has orders; the church has law; it has ordinances; it has a king, and all of 
that. These are ear marks; but I charge him with marking somebody else's 
hogs. That church has no more to do with the church that John belongs to 
than it does to Mormonism. I ask you if the Mormon church claims to be 
the Church of Jesus Christ with the appellation Latter-Day Saints? Have 
you any more right to your name than they have to theirs? Does the name 
make the church? Can the Church of Christ be a church without the name 
Church of Christ? Answer this. Assertions are no proof. Reading a lot 
of Scriptures without argument is not proof. He introduced the Greek him- 
se.f , and he cannot give the construction of a Greek sentence, and I challenge 
him to do it. The Lord added to them day by day those that were be^ng 
saved, and I say to him, you take up that word "they" and make it mean 
church. If you do not do it it is because you are afraid to do it, because you 
cannot do it. He said he would stand by every quotation he made. Is he 
doing it? Language means something; words mean something. "They" 
does not mean church. Ecclesia does not come from the word they. He 
said it meant called out. Does "they" mean called out? Acts 1:6-7-8 — I 
begin where I left off awhile ago. 

I love to hear Brother Willis exhort all right enough, but I have heard 
many men exhort and make use of extravagant expressions. That is just 
what he did in Acts 1:6-7-8. Here we go: "When they therefore were 
come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time 
restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, it is not for 
you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His 
own power." Now I am going to ask Brother Willis another question. Does 
he have reference to the kingdom of the church here, or does he have refer- 
erence to a political kingdom? If you take the position it was the church 
*then the church belonged to Israel and had been taken away from him and 
the devil had prevailed against it, and the gates of hell prevailed against it. 
All authorities take the position that kingdom has reference to the political 
kingdom. They were looking for the setting up of a political kingdom of 
Israel. The Romans had gone down there and overthrown the power of the 

63 



Kingdom of Israel. They were subservient to Rome. They had looked for 
a king that would restore them in the political throne of David. They asked 
him "wit thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel?" and Jesus 
answered them in the only way they were able to comprehend, and He gave 
them to understand that it was not of this kingdom that He had reference 
to, but He said, "Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come 
upon you." That kingdom is not restored yet, sir. "But ye shall receive 
power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you and ye shall be wit- 
nesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and 
unto the uttermost part of the earth." Not of a political kingdom, but of 
something higher. Shall testify of the kingdom that I gave unto you, and 
He said, "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed 
unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on 
the thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." That is the kingdom that 
He turned over into their own hands. I appoint unto you a kingdom. Did 
He have a kingdom to give them? Did he do it? "Ye shall be witnesses 
unto the uttermost part of the earth." He does not say you shall organize a 
church at Jerusalem or Judaea or Samaria, or build a house at Jerusalem 
or set up a church at Jerusalem, but shall bear witness unto me. That is 
the object of it, "in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part 
of the earth." 

Now the next quotation, Acts 2:1-17. Here they are: "And when the 
day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, 
and it fi led all the house where they were sitting." They are preaching 
now, not organizing and beginning something new. "And there appeared 
unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And 
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other 
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at 
Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when 
this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, 
because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they 
were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all 
these which speak Galilaeans? And now hear we every man in our own 
tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medas, and Elamites, and 
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and 
Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Lybia about 
Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, 
we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And 
they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What 
meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." 
Now Peter stands up before them and begins to preach. Here are the signs 
that were given: "And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in 
the earth beneath; blood and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be 
turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable 

64 



day of the Lord come." Does the moon turn into blood? Doesn't he tell 
us that this should take place on that day? These signs take place on that 
day; the beginning on this day. Now what did we read to you concerning 
the prophecies awhile ago? That there shall be signs in heaven, and blood 
— you remember it. Did these things take place on this day? I tell you 
these things took place at the crucifixion of Christ. The sun became as 
black as sack-cloth, and the stars fell from heaven as a big tree. There was 
a falling of the stars there; there was an opening of the tombs there on the 
day of the crucifixion. Now this did not take place on the day of Pentecost. 
These are the signs. What did take place on the day of Pentecost? First, 
they were in the upper room; the Spirit came down upon them; they spake 
with tongues; Peter preached and lifted up his voice and said to them, "For 
these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the 
day. But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel; And it shall 
come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon 
all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young 
men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my 
servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; 
and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and 
signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun 
shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great 
and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whoso- 
ever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, 
hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you 
by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of 
you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate 
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have 
crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of 
death; because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David 
speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he 
is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart 
rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine 
Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; 
thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, 
let me freely speak unto you." They repented of their sins; they accepted 
the gospel; they believed and were saved and baptized just like they were 
in the 10th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. No organization; no putting 
in of officers; no sacraments; the preaching of the gospel and the reception 
of the Jews as additional to them. That is the character that is referred to. 
The Lord added unto them daily those that were being saved. 

Now it develops on Brother Willis first, to show organization there. 
Second, to demonstrate to the minds of these people that this organization 
that he shall set up is the same identical one that he is a member of. Then 
again, Paul to the Hebrews, 1:1-2, "God, who at sundry times and in divers 

65 



manners spake in time past unto the fathers of the prophets, Hath in the§£ 
last days spoken unto us by his 'Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all 
things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his 
glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the 
word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on 
the right hand of the Majesty on high'; Being made so much better than the- 
ange s, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day 
have I begotten thee ? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be 
to me a Son?" What do we learn from this text? We learn that in the 
last days of the personal ministry of Christ on earth, the last day of the 
working out of the gospel plan, the last days of the fulfillment of the 
prophesies referring to the great gospel scheme of redemption, the last days 
spoken unto us by His Son. Here is the appointment of Jesus Christ, heir 
of the kingdom. He came into the world a King; He came into the world sir 
priest, was born a priest, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of 
Melchizedek." Was he a priest then? A priest had the only authority to* 
sacrifice. Jesus Christ sacrificed himself on the altar. If He had not been 
a priest He usurped the honor that belonged to him. Tell me, my brother, 
whether the apostle told the truth when he made that statement. If he was 
a king he had a kingdom; if he was a priest he had a sacrifice and had an 
altar and offered sacrifices. Are all those things laid down in the Scrip- 
tures? Are they true? There is something for you to do, sir. 

In the next place, Luke 24: 46-47, "And said unto them, Thus it is 
written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the' 
third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached 
in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." Was it the preach- 
ing that began at Jerusalem, or was it the remission of sins that begaw at 
Jerusalem? Tell us whether it was repentance for remission of sins that 
began at Jerusalem, or whether it was the preaching after the second of the 
Acts of the apostles began at Jerusalem. What does that phrase modify? 
If you make an argument on it you must stand there. 

Let us turn to Acts 8:1-2. What do we find here? ''And Saul was con- 
senting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution 
against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered 
abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. 
And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation 
over him." 

(Moderator Hines.) You are after the wrong reference. 

(Elder Laslie.) What is the reference? 

(Moderator Hines.) "They were everywhere preaching the word," is 
the reference. 

(Elder Laslie.) "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every- 
where preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, 
and. preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed 

60 



tmto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which 
he did." Because they went everywhere preaching the word, it does not 
follow that the church was established on the day of Pentecost. You may 
laugh about it; it is funny (referring to Moderator Hines.) 

(Moderator Hines.) You missed the point. 

(Elder Laslie.) I know it isn't there. Shut your mouth; I have the 
floor. And the people gave heed to those things, seeing the miracles which 
he did. That is all the point there was in it, except the point that they 
believed it. They went everywhere preaching the word; they were scattered 
abroad preaching the word and the people believed it. There is no other 
point that can be brought from the text, and any other point that is brought 
from the text is absolutely false. I say it remains for him to show that it 
does. 

Then again Gal. 4:26-27. We can make argument on these things, but 
getting men to see where it is. I cannot give the perception; that is beyond 
my power. Gal. 4:26. "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the 
mother of us all." I am going to ask my brother how many mothers he has 
got? Is Jerusalem the mother of all churches? Is Jerusalem the mother 
of the saints? Of what saints is Jerusalem a mother? Whenever he 
takes the position that Jerusalem is the mother of the churches, the mother 
of the church, then a child partakes of the nature of its parents. Now then 
when he takes that position that Jerusalem is the mother of the church to 
which he belongs then he gives up the establishment on the day that it is 
represented in Acts 2, and that is the argument he made a moment ago. I 
will wait for him to develop that. Gal. 4:26-27; Zech. 1: 16. He goes back 
In the prophecy to "Therefore thus saith the Lord: I am returned to Jeru- 
salem with mercies; my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, 
and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem. Cry yet, saying, Thus 
saith the Lord of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread 
abroad: and the Lord shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusa- 
lem. Then lifted I up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns." 

Before I take up an argument on this scripture I will ask whether there 
is any difference between Zion and Jerusalem in this first passage of scrip- 
ture: "And the Lord shall yet comfort Zion," and further, "and shall yet 
choose Jerusalem." Now is Zion and Jerusalem the same thing there or 
not? "Cry yet, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; My cities through 
prosperity shall yet be spread abroad; and the Lord shall yet comfort Zion, 
and shall yet choose Jerusalem." "Therefore thus saith the Lord; I am 
returned to Jerusalem with mercies." Does he say I will return? I am 
going to return? Is he speaking of National Irsael, or is he speaking of 
the coming church? You leave the people here to determine that every 
one of these prophecies has reference to the church. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I come 
this afternoon to continue the discussion of the proposition, and also to an- 

67 



swer the speech of the brother in the forenoon., I want to ask first, what 
has he done with Zion? Elder, I am still after you. What have you done 
with Zion? He says Zion sometimes means Jerusalem. Does it mean 
Jerusalem in Isa. 28:16? That is what we are after. Next, he criticises my 
statements concerning the Freewill Baptists and says they are not the Free- 
will Baptists, and he criticised the work that I read from. Now this is the 
history of all Nations of the World. That is the title of the book. The 
Baptist history is in this book. I do not call this a Baptist history in toto, 
but the history of the Baptists is in this book and I read from their history. 
On page 506, in order to get before you the fact that Benjamin Randall 
was the originator of this movement and it was known as Freewill Baptist, 
and also by the name or appellation General Baptist. On page 505 I read: 
"Freewill Baptist Church. This denomination appeared for the first time, 
as organized and distinctive, in the year 1780. The causes leading to the 
separation from the Baptist Church were two. The first is found in the 
Arminian tendencies, existing to a limited extent, among some of the early 
Baptist churches. * * * * They were called Randallites, General Pro- 
vis'oners, New Lights and Freewillers, the last of which has clung to them 
and which they accepted, being known as Freewill Baptists." According to 
this history they were called both Freewill and General. He repudiates 
that history. Here is one he says is all right. See what it says. 

(Brother Laslie.) I said it was authentic. 

(Brother Willis.) Here is a little statement handed in. Freewill Bap- 
tists in general as separate and distinct denomination. This was handed in. 
I suppose that the gentleman who did this thought the brother needed a 
little help, and sure he does. Now you understand that the Church of Christ 
and Disciples are put down in the statistics as separate bodies; also New 
Lights. See what Cramp says. This is the history of the Baptists, from 
J. M. Cramp, D.D., Baptist History, page 498: "A sad degeneracy had 
taken place among the General Baptist (called Free-will Baptist in the 
United States), who, as the reader is doubtless aware, adopt Arminian 
views, the Particular Baptists being denominated Calvanistic. Armianism 
had crept among them, and with it certain other errors. The loss of life 
followed the obscuration of light. Anti-evangelical sentiments and prac- 
tices prevailed to such an alarming extent that the sound hearted of that 
denomination felt the necessity of withdrawment. They possibly withdrew 
in the year 1770, and formed the 'New Connextion of General Baptists.' 
The blessing of God followed the movement. The new body thus consti- 
tuted is now the General Baptist Denomination, the Arianized churches 
having for the most part fallen into Socianism, or become extinct." 

Now there you are. I will not question Campbell's veracity. I told 
you I didn't introduce him as a witness in this investigation, simply because 
he wasn't inspired. He was fallible and he made many mistakes like you 
and I and other men. He wants to know the difference between Christian 
church and the Church of Christ. I can tell you the difference. That doesn't 

68 



writer into this discussion. I remember very distinctly you adopted one of 
our men and you call on him to denominate the difference between the two 
and he took the time to put down the difference between the two outside 
of the discussion or proposition at hand. No, sir, I am not discussing with 
the Christian Church folks. He wants the grammatical construction of 
Acts 2:38. 

(Elder Laslie.) That was not it. 

(Brother Willis.) That is one of them. He wanted a grammatical 
construction of Acts 2:38. AH right I can give you a grammatical construc- 
tion, and possibly he could, but he is no authority and neither am I. 

(Elder Laslie.) I stand as recognized authority on English grammar. 

(Brother Willis.) I do not recognize you as authority; not on English 
grammar; so that would end with a war of words on the grammatical con- 
struction. I will read Brother Laslie a little bit here on that, and he intro- 
duced this as the Grub-Ax, Elder. 

(Elder Laslie.) I will stand by it. 

(Brother Will's.) "Then again," he says, "the primary meaning of the 
word 'eis,' according to standard Greek authors, such as Donnogan, Liddell 
and Scott, Goodwin, Bullion, Hadley and Allen, and in fact the great bulk 
of the scholars of the world, is never 'for,' but, 'into,' 'to,' which when 
viewed in the light of reason and scripture are in perfect harmony with 
the B'ble." Now accept that. It is your construction and you give the 
scholarship of the world. 

You remember what he said. I have it in my notes. Do you remember 
what he said about the Pentecostians ? He said they were saved and were 
baptized. Now what about his construction of Acts 2:38? His construc- 
tion of the word "for" translated from the Greek "eis" simply means bap- 
tized into the remission of sins; the strongest term that can possibly be 
used. I have three Baptist translations here and they use the word "unto" 
but it is not as strong as the word "into." Baptized, "for" "eis." "For," 
"into" the remission of your sins. I can introduce it if necessary on Acts 
2:38. The Elder said baptized "into" the remission of sins. There is your 
construction, Elder, and that uproots you. Talk about Grub-Ax — you 
grubbed yourself up. You turned your own gun on you. 

You want the construction of "build." I gave that to your yesterday. 
Here is your Grub-Ax. I will exhibit that. Listen to what he says. I will 
read: "And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 
16:18. Matthew says to build, to set up, to establ r sh, to organize. Here is 
the grammatical construction of your Grub-Ax. I will accept it. How do 
you like the Grub-Ax, Elder, by this time? He wants to know if the word 
"they" refers to church. Indeed it does. He denies it. Let me read you 
a statement from the Word of God. And he wants to know, further- 
more, if "them" means called out. In Acts 1, beginning at the 12th verse I 
will read to the close of the 15th, inclusive. Let's see who the apostles 

69 



were. "Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, 
which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey. And when they were 
come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and 
James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and 
Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the 
brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and 
supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his 
brethren. And m those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, 
and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and 
twenty.)" Were they called out people? They were the disciples, and 
Peter stood up in the midst of them. Whose disciples were they? The 
disciples of Christ. A body of disciples numbering a hundred and twenty, 
and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:6-8, witnesses; began at Jerusa- 
lem. They were beginning to bear witness at Jerusalem; to Samaria and 
Judaea and to the uttermost parts of the earth. 

He talks about the kingdom, of a political kingdom, and he said, are 
they going to restore the kingdom to Israel? It don't make any difference 
with me what he calls it. That is the meaning of the statement plain and 
pointed. He says it isn't for you to know the times and the seasons that 
God has in His Power. He is to receive power after that the Holy Ghost is 
come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and 
Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Did He have 
a kingdom to give them? He says he did. Luk. 12:32. "Fear not, little 
flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." He 
undoubtedly possessed it or he wouldn't have promised to give them the 
kingdom. Acts 2:16-17. It is Joel's prophecy. "But this is that which was 
spoken by the prophet Joel"; calling this prophecy to show its fulfillment 
on that very day. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I 
will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters 
shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men 
shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I 
will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophecy." The 
prophecy of Joel in the last day was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. I 
have made the assertion, and he has not called in question, that the last days 
refer to the Christian dispensation, and I quote this prophecy to show that 
the last days began on Pentecost, and the apostle Peter quotes this prophecy 
to show its fulfillment on that very day. 

The Pentecostians believed, were saved and baptized in Grub-Ax. You 
know what he said in the Grub-Ax; baptized "into" the remission of sins, 
and now referring to the Pentecostians he says "believed, saved and were 
baptized." In the Grub-Ax, with that statement concerning the Pentecost 
and the way he stated it here, I would like to know how he harmonizes it. 
Heb. 1:2, last days — I quoted Paul as the date 64 — the last days hath He 
spoken through His Son — Paul was living then, and that was in A. D. 64. 
He came into the world a priest. He afterward came out on that priest- 

70 



hood. I have been listening for it. He says Jesus Christ came into the 
world a priest, and was born a priest. I deny it. Paul says in Heb. 8:4, he 
should not be a priest on the earth. There you are, Elder. Contradictory 
to the apostle Paul. Read it, Heb. 8:4, says, he should not be a priest on 
earth. Elder Laslie says he was and Paul says he should not be. Which 
are you going to have ? 

I want to call attention to this chart here. The remission of sins in 
Acts 2:30, repent in the name of Jesus Christ; "eis," with a view to remis- 
sion of sins. Elder Laslie says "into" the strongest term that can be used. 
This is my blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many, (using 
three Greek words.) With a view to the remission of sins. Elder Laslie 
says "into" the remission of sins. 

Now I want to offer an argument on the kingdom. Mark 9:1, "Verily 
I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not 
taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." 
Power and Spirit come together. Acts 1:8. "But ye shall receive power, 
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." When did the Spirit come? 
Acts 2:1-4. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all 
with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from 
Heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, 
and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, 
and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 
Acts 2:1-4. First the kingdom and the power were to come together 1 ; 
second, the power and the Spirit were to come together; third, that the 
Spirit came an the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. There- 
fore the kingdom and power came on that day. Give him a kingdom: Dan. 
17:13-14, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man 
came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they 
brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and 
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve 
him." Note first, Son of man. Secondly, came with the clouds of heaven. 
Third, came to the Ancient of days, which is God. Fourth, gave him a king- 
dom. Fifth, all nations should serve him. He went to receive a kingdom. 
Luke 19:11-12. "And as they heard these things, he added and spake a 
parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that 
the kingdom of God should immediately appear. And he said therefore, A 
certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, 
and to return." WJien did the nobleman, Christ, go to the far country? 

(Elder Laslie.) You gave the wrong chapter in Daniel. You said 17. 

(Brother Willis.) Dan. 7:13-14. When did the nobleman, Christ, go to 
the far country? Acts 1:9-11. "And when he had spoken these things, 
while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their 
s'ght. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, 
behold, two men stood by them in white apparel: Which also said, Ye men 

71 



of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which 
is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have 
seen him go into heaven." Thus you know that after His resurrection He 
went into the far country, heaven. Went with the clouds of heaven; came 
to the Ancient of days, God, and then He received the kingdom and glory. 
The right hand of thy kingdom; Matt. 20:21. "Grant that these my two 
sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in tlr: v 
kingdom." Right hand of thy glory; Mark 10:37. "Grant unto us that we 
iray sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory." 
They did that after Christ entered into His glory. He would then be in 
His kingdom and such is the truth, and when He entered into that giory He 
received the kingdom, but when did He enter into His glory? Christ suf- 
fered and entered into glory, Luke 24:26. "Ought not Christ to have suffered 
these things, and to enter into his glory?" Received up into glory. 1st 
Tim. 3:16. "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of 
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up 
into glory." He wasn't in His glory while on earth. When was He in His 
kingdom while on earth ? He was glorified when He ascended to heaven and 
the Holy Spirit was given out through His glorification. Read John 7:39, 
Now just a few Scriptures on the last days. It does not seem like the 
Elder is settled on that question. The last days. The Lord's house estab- 
lished. Isa. 2:2-3, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the 
mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the moun- 
tains." He called my attention to the fact of the poor old mountains, that 
the Lord's house was to be established in the top of the mountains. Is 
Zion in Jerusalem, on mountains, on four mountains ? "And shall be exalted 
above the hil.s; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall 
go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the house of the God of Jacob; 
and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of 
Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." 
And it went forth on the day of Pentecost, 33 A. D. On the first Pentecost 
Peter said, Acts 2:16-17, from the prophet Joel "it shall come to pass on the 
last days." What is the Lord's house? 1st Tim. 3:15, "But if I tarry long, 
that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of 
God, which is the church of the living God," the house of God is the church 
of God. Who was present on Pentecost when Peter preached? Acts 2:5-10. 
"And there were dweling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every 
nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude 
came together and were confounded, because that every man heard them 
speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, say- 
ing one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And 
how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Par- 
tisans, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in 
Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in 
Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews 

72 



and proselytes." The sermon was delivered in the city of Jerusalem, on the 
first Pentecost after the resurrection. Peter said it was the last day. That 
is the exact time. Isaiah said the house of the Lord, the church of God, 
should be established and he said all nations shall flow unto it. (All nations 
could not flow during the first ministry of Christ), for he bade his apostles 
go not into any city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel. Acts 11:15. As I spake the Holy Spirit fell on them as on 
us at the beginning. The Holy Spirit fell on them on the first Pentecost 
after the resurrection of Christ. Acts 2:4. 

Just a little more on the throne question. Christ promised David's 
throne. Luke 1:32. "He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the 
Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father, 
David. David's throne is the Lord's throne." 1st Kings 2:12. "Then sat 
Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was estab- 
lished greatly." 1st Chron. 29:23. "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the 
Lord as king instead of David, his father." David's throne is in heaven. Psa. 
89:34-37. "Once I have sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. 
His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall 
be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven." 
Psa. 11:4. "The Lord's throne is in heaven." Raised, resurrected, to sit on 
the throne; another oath. Acts 2:30. "Therefore, being a prophet, and 
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of 
his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his 
throne;" that His soul was not left in hell, hades, neither did his flesh see 
corruption. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brethren and Moderators and Friends: I am before 
you again to follow Brother Willis in his wanderings and preamblings, and 
try if possible to find some shadow of the church that he represents in the 
proposition. First and foremost, I have some questions here I want Brother 
Willis to answer: 

1. Brother Willis, is it not a fact that the church of which you are a 
pastor is a Christian Church, and is not its property deeded to the Christian 
Church? This church right here, is it not a fact? 

(Brother Willis.) I will answer them in my time. Hand them to me. 

(Elder Laslie.) 2. In Matt. 18:17 was there not a church in existence 
at this time? If not, how could they take the matter spoken of in Matt. 
18:17 of the church if there was not a church in existence? 

3. Is the name essential to the validity of church-hood? 

4. You say a church can exist without officers and also without ordi- 
nances. You also teach that there is no salvation without baptism. How 
can there be any salvation in that church, and what kind of church is it, I 
want to know, that exists without ordinances? 

(Brother Willis.) I will answer them right off the reel, Elder. 

5V Did God have a church on earth before Pentecost, given in Acts 2 ? 

73 



6. If a people should preach and practice the whole truth, and yet take 
some other name than the one you bear, would tjjey be true churches of 
Christ, and would they be saved? 

7. When was the expression Church of Christ given to the people of 
God as a specific name? I want to know the chapter and verse. 

8. Is it not a fact that the church is designated in about fifty different 
ways, and under at least fifty different appellations in the Bible? 

9. Where in the Bible do we find the church called by any specific name, 
exclusive of all other names, and by Divine authority? 

10. Can any government, either civil or ecclesiastical, be established 
without law and officers? 

11. Then where in Acts 2 were the law and officers given to the church? 

12. Was the tru^h to be found in any church before the days of Alexander 
Campbell? If so, what church possessed it, exclusive of all other de- 
nominations ? 

13. If your church possessed an organic form, please tell me, and this 
people, where we may find its history? 

14. Can the truth be found in any church except your own? 

15. Can any one be saved in a Christian land without the truth? 

16. Are you not a denomination or church separate and distinct from ail 
other churches? Answer this, yes or no. 

17. Then are those other churches any part of the Church of Christ? 
Answer, yes or no. 

18. If they are not, can any of them be saved? 

19. Were your people ever identified with Alexander Campbell in his 
reformatory movement? 

20. Tell this people how you organize, set up, or establish a church. 

21. Tell tyiese people what a gospel church is. 

22. Will you give the process of the organization of the church in 
Acts, 2nd chapter? 

23. You say the church was organized on the day of Pentecost, now 
what officers were put in it on that day? I have called on him repeatedly 
and he has not given that. 

24. Were the apostles members of the church you say was established 
on the day of Pentecost? And I add to tyiat question, When were they 
placed in and by whom ? 

25. When were they taken into the church? Chapter and verse. 

26. Can any one be saved outside of the Church of Christ? 

27. % Are all saved people members of the Church of Christ? Then in 
answer to that, 

28. Is that church exclusively the one that you belong to? 

Now Brother Willis has thirty minutes to place the doctrines of his 
church in it. Up thus far he has a cjiurch without doctrines, if he calls it 
a church. He has been trying to prove that the church was established and 
set up on the day of Pentecost laid down in Acts 2:38. I have called on him 

74 



repeatedly for the identity of that church. I am still calling to him and he 
has thirty minutes more in which to answer the question and place the 
doctrine of remission of sins by water and establish it on repentance and 
justification and regeneration, all in thirty minutes. Up to this time he has 
a church without doctrine at all. We do not know whether he has any faith, 
or not any faith, or repentance. We do not know whether it has justif "caticn 
or regeneration or not; we do not know whether it has any witnesses of the 
Spirit, or any testimony or anything of that kind. We do not know whether 
it has vocal or instrumental music; whether it has Sunday schools or not. 
He has to put them all in there or take them all out in the next thirty 
minutes. Brother Willis, you have a job. 

I want to notice some things, and then I want to notice some other 
things. With regard to all of this exhortotion about his going to receive a 
kingdom and about His going into His g-ory. Christ Jesus went into H's 
glory; He went into His Father's kingdom. Christ prayed, "And now, O 
Father, glorify thou Me with thine own self with the glory which I had 
with thee before the world was." His prayer was answered. My Brother, 
we are not talking about the kingdom above; we are talking about the king- 
dom on earth. He went into His kingdom before He went into His Father's 
kingdom, but now then the kingdom that was set up, that he claims was set 
up in Acts 2, that is a different thing. Was Christ in that kingdom before 
He ascended to heaven? That is the point, and when he settles that point, 
then he is to settle the point whether that was the same kingdom that was 
established on the day of Pentecost. Is that the same that Brother Willis 
belongs to? I have said no, and still say no. 

With regard to that proposition about those grammatical statements. 
Brother Willis, I am not going to push you on grammar at a!l. I can 
measure you and this congregation can measure you. I will tell you what 
I will do. If you will take that sentence up in the Greek Testament and 
get "church" in the last verse I will give you a dollar, and I will lay it 
down here now. If you will get "church" in the last verse of Acts, 2nd 
chapter, I will give you a greenback dollar right here. Now that is fair. 
I say emphatically that the word "church" is not in t,here in the Greek and 
that must settle it all. Now if he will get the word "church" out of the 
pronoun then I will give him one dollar and he cannot do it and I will give 
him the time. He may have from now till doom's day and whenever he gets 
it at doom's day, if he is there, I will be there and I will have my dollar. 

Now with regard to Acts 2:38, in order to be brief and get over the 
ground I will give you some argument that I made at Warren's Mill on that, 
Acts 2:38. Then you will see why I take the position with regard to "into" 
relative to that proposition "eis." Ice is sl.ck, you know. 

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins." Acts 2:38. 

"In order for us to understand the meaning of this, as well as all other 
passages of like nature, it is necessary for us to learn what was God's plan 

75 



of saving men, and the nature of the teaching of Christ and His apostles 
on this subject. All Biblical interpretation must be in harmony with God's 
plan." Now he talked about me being his student. All right; I never saw 
a man who knew so little yet but what I could learn something from him, 
if it was no more than t? learn how little >he knew. Now I will let the 
General Baptists' ignorance that he cast a slur at, I will let that stand 
against Brother Willis' wisdom. I will let the grammatical ignorance of 
the Baptists stand against Brother Willis' knowledge, and I will say to 
Brother Willis whenever he goes to a standard college and gets one classical 
and one theological diploma, whenever he makes two state certificates, one 
professional and one general, or if he will go to the County Board of Ex- 
aminers and make a second-class certificate I will acknowledge that he 
knows something of grammar, notwithstanding the General Baptist ignorance. 
Now if he had not done that I would not have challenged his knowledge, and 
I challenge his knowledge and he can prove it or let me alone. There are 
four things we must know. First, we have to know who it is speaking. 
Secondly, we have to know to whom the speaker is speaking. Thirdly, we 
have to know of what he is speaking and, fourthly, we have to know under 
what conditions and circumstances he is speaking. In the fifth place, does 
what he says, the meaning of what he has said, correspond with the general 
tenor of other teachings of God's word? Now if either of these things are 
wanting we go astray. If I know who it is that is speaking correctly, I 
must know to whom he is speaking correctly, I must know of what he is 
speaking correctly, I must know, incidentally, the conditions of which he is 
speaking, yet if I gave a wrong construction or wrong grammatical meaning, 
if I give a wrong etymological meaning to these words then it will not 
correspond to the teaching of God's word and is, therefore, false. 

Now let us see if this corresponds with the brother's definition of Acts 
2:38, corresponds with the general plan of salvation: "As one truth cannot 
contradict another truth, so the Scriptures being true, one Scripture cannot 
contradict another Scripture; then Acts 2:38 must be in harmony with God's 
plan, and cannot contradict any other Scripture. 

"First — Then what is God's plan for saving men ? In other words, what 
are 1ihe conditions upon which God promises to save men? Let the Bible say: 

" 'He believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for righteousness. 
Gen. 15:16.' If it was counted to him for righteousness he was saved. 
Therefore, he was saved on the ground of faith. That was God's plan. 

" 'Let all those that put their trust in Thee rejoice ; let them ever shout 
for joy, because Thou defendest them. Psa. 5:11.' They are saved on the 
ground of their trust in God. 

" 'He that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about. Psa. 
32:10.' In the second place, mercy compasses the saved. Therefore, they 
are saved because they trust in the Lord. 

" '0, taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man that 
trusteth in Him. Psa. 34:8.' Those that taste and see that the Lord is 

76 



good, in other words, those that are ahle to prove the goodness of God are 
blest. The second promise says those that are blest and know and taste, 
that the Messed are saved. Therefore, they are saved because they trust 
in God. 

" 'Blessed is the man that maketh the Lord his trust. Psa. 40.' Blessed 
is the man that maketh the Lord h:s trust, that he that is blest on that 
ground is saved because he maketh the Lord his trust. 

" 'They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Zion, -which cannot be 
removed but abideth forever. Psa. 125:1.' 

" Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own 
understanding. Prov. 3:5.' 

" 'Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on Thee 
because he trusteth in Thee. Isa. 26:3.' And he that keepeth in perfect 
peace is saved. 

"Thy faith hath made thee whole. Matt. 2:22.' This represents 
affliction and that refers to the sick, that disease is removed and that faith 
made the sick one whole. Therefore, the patient was made whole on the 
ground of faith. 

" 'According to your faith be it unto you. Matt. 9:29.' 

"'Thy faith hath saved thee. Luke 18:42.' 

"'Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace. Luke 7:50.' 

" 'As many as received Him to them He gave power to become the sons 
of God, even to them that believed on His name. John 1:12.' But those 
that have power, that have a right to become the sons of God, are saved 
on the ground of faith. 

" 'That whosoever believeth on Him should not per:'sh, but have ever- 
lasting life. John 3:15-16.' That whosoever believeth hath everlasting life, 
is saved, therefore, he is saved on the ground of belief. He must answer 
those arguments. I told him I would not offer a single passage of Scripture 
unless I made an argument on that. Now he must answer it. 

"'I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me though 
he were dead yet shall he live. John 11:25.' Those that are dead yet live 
are saved. Therefore, they are saved on the ground of their faith. 

"'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. John 3:36.' 

" 'He that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on 
Me shall never thirst. John 6:35.' 

'"Whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. John 11:26.' 
That man that shall never die is saved, is saved on the ground of coming 
and believing in Jesus Christ." 

Now that presents God's plan of saving men. Let us go a little bit 
further. The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Acts 
10:44 — otherwise the Holy Ghost can dwell and fall upon unsaved men and 
women and they speak with tongues and magnify God and if they are unsaved 
then God hath given them the gift of tongues in an unsaved state and they 
are sinners before God and, according to my brother, they are children of 

77 



the devil in an unsaved state and have the gift of tongues and magnify God. 
When he baptizes one of those characters he says I be.ieve in repentance 
and I believe in faith, and also to the believer, I have a proposition now 1 
under consideration with one man belonging to the same people Brother 
Willis belongs to, and one of the propositions is that whether baptism is in 
order to the remission of sins to the penitent believer. If this proposition 
is true and this is Brother Willis' doctrine — now if those people that re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost are sinners they are children of the devil. I ask him 
whether he baptizes a child of God or whether he baptizes a child of the 
devil? I ask him what kind of creature a penitent believer is until he is 
baptized? He cannot be both; he cannot be half-way. He must either be a 
sinner or he must be a child of God. Before baptism is administered to him 
if he is a sinner he is a child of the devil. Therefore, Brother Willis 
baptizes a child of the devil to make him a child of God. Therefore, if he 
is a child of God, baptism does not make him so. 

"We learn from these Scriptures (and we could multiply them many 
times) that it is God's plan to save men on the ground or condition of faith 
as the act that brings us into nearness to Christ. It is called the condition, 
because it includes all other previous acts, a literal belief, conviction for 
sin (which is included in repentance), praying for pardon; all these are 
embraced in the faith that justifies. We also learn from the Scriptures 
that we are regenerated, washed, sanctified and saved by t^he Holy Spirit. 
Now, if this is God's plan, all Scriptures must harmonize with His plan; 
there can be no contradiction. 

"Well, does Acts 2:38 harmonize with His plan? Let us see. First, 
Peter preached the gospel unto them; they heard it. Second, 'They were 
pricked in their heart,' were convicted. Third, they were then penitent, 
asking, 'What shall we do?' Fourth, Peter instructed them, verse 38. Now 
that they believed that Jesus is the Christ is certain, because they were 
pricked in their hearts; but that this is not enough before baptism is clear, 
for Peter commands repentance before baptism, in verse 38. So then it is 
evident that the meaning of this passage depends on the purpose for which 
baptism is commanded in it and this in turn depends on the meaning of the 
proposition eis, here translated, for, which is a bad translation, to say the 
least; but we will accept it as it is translated in the common version and 
even then we will be able to show that there need be no trouble in harmon- 
izing the passage with God's plan as revealed in His word." Why didn't 
you read that, sir, when you read the other? "In the Encyclopedic Dic- 
tionary, Vol. 2, pages 2158-9, we have the following definitions for the 
word for: 

"1. 'In the presence or sight of;' 2. 'In return for;' 3. 'As a return 
for;' 4. 'Because of;' 5. 'By reason of;' 6. 'W;ith respect to; '7. 'With regard 
to.' Take any one of these meanings (and they are the first meaning given 
to the word) and apply it to Acts 2:38 and you will have the apostle's 

78 



meaning exactly and in harmony with the teachings of the Bible on this 
subject, as follows: 

"1. 'Be ye baptized for (in tjie presence of) remission;' 2. 'Be ye bap- 
tized in return for remission;' 3. 'Be baptized as a return for remission;' 4. 
'Be baptized because of remission;' 5. 'Be baptized by reason of remission;' 
6. 'Be baptized with respect to remission;' 7. 'Be baptized with regard to re- 
mission.' In each instance it is seen that baptism refers to a work done. That 
work is regeneration. For just as those who truly repent, truly believe and 
trust in the Lord, so in harmony with the foregoing passages those who truly 
believe in Jesus are justified, forgiven, regenerated. But again, the expression, 
'In order to,' when applied to Acts 2:38, destroys the meaning of the general 
tenor of God's word regarding the plan of salvation; therefore, it is not ad- 
missible. But some one will say, does not the word 'for' ever mean 'in order 
to?' I answer yes. The Encyclopedic Dictionary gives it as its 23rd meaning. 
Now the question is: Which is the more nearly right, that meaning which, 
when taken with all God's word makes complete sense and harmony with God's 
word, or a meaning far fetched and involving contradiction in God's word? 

"Then again, the primary meaning of the word 'eis,' according to 
standard Greek authors, such as Donnegan, Liddell and Scott, Goodwin, 
Bullion, Hadley and Allen and, in fact, the great bulk of the scholars of the 
world, is never 'for,' but 'into,' 'to,' which, when viewed in the light of reason 
and Scripture, are in perfect harmony with the Bible. 

"We will now give the word its ordinary meaning, applying it to the 
Scriptures. You may wonder what is the gain. Read Matt. 3:11." 

Brother Willis won't baptize a man until he comes to him with repentance. 
He has got the cart before the horse. Baptism was never given in order to 
produce repentance. 

"Again, Matt. 28:19, 'Go teach all nations, baptizing them "eis" (into) 
the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' In this 'eis' most certainly 
cannot mean 'in order to.' " 

If the Holy Spirit is not felt the plan of salvation authorizes no man 
under the canopy of heaven, that has a right to use this name, in baptizing 
anybody in the name of t^he Father until that plan is applied to the heart 
and the soul of the individual repenting and believing in Jesus Christ. My 
friends, unless he has partaken of the Spirit of the Living God, no man has 
the right to raise his hand and say, "I baptize thee in the name of the 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost." 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I ap- 
pear before you to close this discussion of this proposition. The Elder has 
placed quite a little material in my hands, so I will have to be brief. I don't 
know whether the stenographer will get it or not. I want to briefly notice 
several things he said in his last speech. 

The talk about grammatical knowledge is all "buncombe." Now he has 
given a list of scriptures on faith, you remember. I anticipated him on that 

79 



when he grumbled because I gave a lot of scriptures, and he said I made no 
argument. I knew he had it, and here it is. He has given a number of 
passages. Gen. 15:6; "He believed in the Lord and it was accounted to him 
for righteousness." I believe that as far as you do. Righteousness is 
predicated on faith and belief only. Do you mean to teach by all these 
passages a man can be justified or saved on faith only? Whenever he takes 
that position he excludes baptism and he excludes repentance also. He 
dare not take that position. 

(Elder Laslie.) I rise to a point of order. 

(Brother Willis.) He don't believe a man can be justified on faith only. 

(Elder Laslie.) You are charging me with saying something I 
did not say. Here is what I said: "It is called the condition, be* 
cause it includes all other previous acts, a literal belief, conviction for sin, 
forsaking sin, repentance, sorrow for sin, (which is included in repentance), 
praying for pardon; all these are embraced in the faith that justifies." That 
is my statement. 

(Brother Willis.) I believe you are saved on the ground of faith and 
not on faith only. Why need I to read all of these scriptures? I believe 
that faith is the ground, but faith alone won't justify, and faith alone will 
not produce righteousness either. Acts 10. The Gentiles received the Holy 
Ghost. I be.ieve that every conversion is begun and carried out and com- 
pleted by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches it. The mis- 
sion of the Holy Spirit is to reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, 
and of judgment. John 16:8. He wants to know if one is baptized a child 
of God or a child of the devil. That is J. N. Hall. I baptize an individual 
that is dead to the love and practice of sin. 

All right now with the questions. You have no right to copy these 
unless you can take the answers. You won't get these unless you take the 
answers. I have some questions, too, for you. You can take them and copy 
them if you want to. 

1. "Brother Willis, is it not a fact that the church of which you are a 
pastor is a Christian Church, and is not its property deeded to the Christian 
Church?" "The church of which you are a pastor." What churoh do you 
refer to? 

(Elder Laslie.) This one right here. 

(Brother Willis.) I am a servant here in the church. I am not a 
pastor. It has elders. I have charge of this house. The Church Book says 
Church of Christ. I don't know anything about the deed to the property. 
Though it may be deeded to the Roman Catholic Church, that has nothing to 
do with this question. We are talking about spiritual institutions, and not 
about church houses or temporal buildings. I am going to take time to 
read from the Church Book, page 10, of the Church of Christ at this place. 

"The Church of Christ at Cherry Grove was organized in Muhlenberg 
County, Kentucky, December, 1874. Upon the Bible and the Bible alone as 
the only rule for practice organized by B. S. Sandefur and T. C. Withers 

80 



with the eiders and deacons. The church was rebuilt in 1907 and dedicated 
June 30, 1907, by P. M. Durham." Here is what I represent. 

2. "In Matt. 18:17 was there not a church in existence at this time? 
If not, how could they tell it to the church?" No, there was not a church 
in existence, and the trespass was not in existence either. 

3. "Is the name essential to the validity of churchhood?" Indeed it is. 
God promises in Exo. 20:24, wherever they recorded His name, there He 
would meet with His people and would bless them. Acts 4:12, the recorder 
of this Book, Luke, says, there is no other name under heaven given among 
men whereby we can be saved except through the name of Christ. 

4. "You say a church can exist without officers and also without ordi- 
nances. You also teach that there is no salvation without baptism. How 
can there be any salvation in that church?" Salvation follows baptism, 
when administered to a penitent belief, and that is the only man that can 
be baptized. A man who is not a subject of gospel truth is saved, and that 
is true with respect to idiots and infants, saved now, henceforth and for- 
evermore, but baptism is one of the conditions on which salvation is predi- 
cated. Mark 16:16, he that believes and is baptized is saved. We give the 
organization of the church in Acts 2nd chapter; the preacher was present; 
the law of Spirit was laid down; the word of God, they heard it, believed it, 
and hence there were added to the church three thousand. 

23. "You say the church was organized on the day of Pentecost, now 
what officers were put in it on that day?" You know churches were not 
officered for a number of years. You know that. But the churches existed 
all the same. They called out people, but they were not officered for a 
number of years. You understand that as well as I do. 

24. "Were the apostles members of the church you say was established 
on the day of Pentecost? When were they placed in and by whom?" They 
were placed in the foundation according to the prophecy of Isaiah. They 
were laid in Zion. They were set in the foundation, in the sub-structure, and 
not in the super-structure. God set them in. 

26. "Can any one be saved outside of the Church of Christ?" Yes, 
idiots and infants can. 

27. "Are all saved people members of the Church of Christ?" Salva- 
tion is in Christ, in the Church of Christ. Not only that, but all the promises 
are in Christ, and to be in Christ is to be in the church. 2nd Cor. 1:20. 

21. "Tell these people what a gospel church is?" A church that 
accepts Jesus Christ as the head or law-giver and conforms to the New 
Testament covenant. That is a New Testament church. 

15. "Can any one be saved in a Christian land without the truth?" 
No, it takes the truth to make you free. That is what Christ said. 

5. "Did God have a church on earth before Pentecost, given in Acts 2 ? " 

6. "If a people should preach and practice the whole truth, and yet 
take some other name than the one you bear, would they be true churches of 
Christ, and would they be saved?" The apostle Paul gives you the lesson 

81 



on turning aside from Divine names and taking human names. You go to 
1st Cor. and read the 1st, 2nd and 3rd chapters, and he says you are carnal, 
and to be carnal-minded is death. Go over there and get a lesson. 

7. "When was the expression Church of Christ given to the people of 
God as a specific name? Chapter and verse." Rom. 16:16. The Church of 
Christ salute you. A church without a name; Matt. 16:18. In Heb. 12:23; 
Col. 1:8, first born, Jesus Christ. Take that home with you and it will do 
you good. 

8. "Is it not a fact that the church is designated in about fifty different 
ways, and under at least fifty different appellations in the Bible?" Quite a 
few appellations, but they mean the same. It is called a house because of 
the fami y feature; it is called a vineyard because of the work feature, and 
called a church because of the called out features, and it is called a kingdom 
because of the governmental feature. I will not go on and tell you why. 

9. "Where in the Bible do we find t,he church called by any specific 
name, exclusive of all other names, and by Divine authority?" We do not 
find any specific aame exclusive of all other names in the Book. 

10. "Can any government either civil or ecclesiastical be established 
without law and officers?" The church was established on Pentecost. They 
had the law; they had the government. The church was officered later. 

11. "Then where in Acts 2 were the law and officers given to the 
church?" 

12. "Was the truth to be found in any other church before the days 
of Alexander Campbell ? If so, what churc^i possessed it, exclusive of all 
other denominations?" The Church of Christ. I read from history. They 
did not begin with A. Campbell. They began with Brother Keiley in 1793. 
He came out of che Methodist church. God has had people on the earth ever 
since the church was established in Jerusalem, because Jesus Christ said 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 

19. "Were your people ever identified with Alexander Campbell in 
his reformatory movement?" No; we are identified with Jesus Christ. 

20. "Tell this people how you organize, set up, or establish a church?" 
With the New Testament law; preach the gospel. 

What has the gentleman shown with the argument? What did he do 
with the appellations church, building, temple, house, kingdom? What did 
he do with the foundation? Isa. 28:16; 1st. Pet. 2:6, in Zion, Jerusalem. 
He has dodged Zion from the first speech until this good hour, and he is 
still dodging. What has he done with it? He knew that if he admitted 
that Zion (in Isa. 28:16) was in Jerusalem, that it killed him forever. Be- 
cause the foundation is laid in Zion and Jerusalem, .hence the Church of 
Jesus Christ is built on it. He dare not take a position on that passage. 
The church built upon the foundation, Eph. 2:20; 1st Pet. 2:5, Christ the 
corner stone; Psa. 118:22; Eph. 2:21, the apostles, pillars, what did he do 
with these? He absolutely did nothing; said nothing about it. The apostles 
were pillars in this building. They went into this foundation, and God set 

82 



them in there, and they were the first set in; but they were tried before they 
were set in. What did they say about poor old Judas ? He was a bad pillar 
and fell. They put a sound pillar in his place, and he goes into the founda- 
tion "of Zion in the person of Matthias, and we have twelve sound pillars to 
go in this building, in this foundation, and then that super-structure begins 
to be erected, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ, the church to which I 
belong and the church of which I am a member and the churches for which I 
am serving as minister. The apostles were in the right place at the right 
time. 

Zion, Jerusalem; Acts 2:4; what did he do with it? He did absolutely 
nothing. The Holy Spirit is given; John 7:39. Christ was exalted; Acts 
5:31, or glorified. Then the Holy Spirit is given. Did he call it in question? 
No. The authority was delivered to the apostle Peter. In Matt. 16:19 
Christ says "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what- 
soever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What did he do 
with this? Nothing. I take the position that here it was a church and 
hence by authority the apostle Peter goes to Pentecost and uses the author- 
ity and the key was dedicated to him and the mother church was established. 
Three thousand v/ere added to them. Acts 2:41. What did he do with that? 
Clamored for grammatical construction. He wanted a war of words. I in- 
troduced the Grub-Ax. What did he do with this? I would like to see his 
book on grammar; I would like to examine it. I would like to have a 
Grub-Ax. 

The first key was used on Pentecost. The authority was exerted on 
Pentecost. He was an ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ under the 
direction of the Holy Spirit, and the word of reconciliation was delivered 
to his hands and he went out with the great commission and established the 
kingdom, the Church of Jesus Christ. The second key is used at the house 
of Cornelius. Eight years later, in the year 41 A. D. the Gentiles passed in 
at the open door that was opened on Pentecost, and John, the revelator, 
said "I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it." Rev. 
3:8. It is wide open today, thank the Lord, and every man that will obey 
the gospel and be initiated into the family of God and take the name of 
the Father and Son collectively, and also individually and glorify God in 
Christ, instead of giving the honor and glory to man, may enter. Name of 
church, Matt. 16:18; 1st Cor. 8:18; Rom. 16:18; Heb. 12:13. 

The Churches of Christ, one of which I am a member, what did he do 
with it? They are identical in name, doctrine and practice. He admitted 
the name. That is what he did. The name of priest. Acts 11:26, what did 
he do with the name Christian ? I listened for him to say it was a heathen 
name. Some of the Baptist debaters do that. Acts 26:28, he paid no atten- 
tion to that. He knows when to let loose. The word "called" from "cre- 
matiso," which means to declare from an oracle. He has not done anything 
with Christian. He turns aside and wears a different name all right. 

83 



Officers, Phili. 1:1. What did he do with that? You find all the officers 
mentioned in that one passage. "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus 
Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the 
bishops and deacons." Here they are. All of them to be found in one 
passage. 

Elders, qualifications, 1st Tim. 3; Tit. 1. What did he say about that? 
Other churches have elders. What has he to say about the qualifications? 
I read that to you. What did he say about the qualification of the deacons ? 
Absolutely nothing. How chosen? Acts 14:23; 1st. Pet. 5. What did he 
say about that? I gave you a scriptural reference. The elders and dea- 
cons were chosen in the church; that the church was directed to the min- 
isters to select faithful men and ordain them in the Church of Christ. What 
did he do with that? He did not do anything. The deacons, their duties, 
how chosen; 1st Tim. 3. The ministers called; Rom. 1; Gal. 1. The law of 
initiation into the kingdom, the church of Jesus Christ; Rom. 8:1-2; "There 
is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who 
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of 
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and deat^h." It 
is laid down in the New Testament to be obeyed upon the part of the member 
alone. Sinner. The same apostle in Rom. 6:18, "Being then made free from 
sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." When you were servants of 
sin, you were free from righteousness. We are born of the Word of God; 
born into the family of God and become children of God, sons and daughters 
of the Lord Almighty. 

What did he say about the law of worship? Did he attack the law of 
worship and the conditions or requisitions laid down in that law? No, 
indeed, he did not. What were they? Assembling of ourselves together. 
Meetings, singing, reading of the Word of God, prayer, preaching or exhor- 
tation, communion, contribution. These requisitions were laid down on this 
audience, on their hearts. What did he do with it? We, the people, are 
observing these things on the first day of every week as we are commanded. 
What did he do with it? Absolutely nothing. 

The perfection of believers; 2n^ Tim. 3:11; 1st Pet., and to your faith 
virtue, and to virtue knowledge, «*nd to knowledge temperance, and to 
temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly 
kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity; but he that lacketh these things 
is blind and cannot see afar off. Peter is writing of Christians. He is 
writing of the disciples of Jesus Christ; doing these things that you may 
grow in knowledge and in truth, and that you may grow in favor, and that 
you may attain absolute perfection in the great beyond. Do these things 
and I will give you a crown of life. Trees in the 7th chapter of Matt, 
refers to character. Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth 
them is a wise man; he built on the rock and on the sure foundation. But 
every one that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not is a foolish 
man; he built his house on the sand. 

84 



Let us become members of the Church of Jesus Christ. Let us take it 
in the New Testament, the last will and testament, as the only rule and 
practice and subscribe to its teachings and do what the Lord comrrands and 
what the Lord demands, and we have the blessed assurance of not only 
salvation for past sins, but eternal salvation in the sweet bye and bye. 

I want to say I appreciate from my heart the good attention that we 
have received on the part of the auditors, and I trust the Word of God that 
has been presented may sink down in your hearts, and I trust you may go to 
the Word of God, and to the New Testament, and see whether or not the 
things that we have been telling you are true. That character of people are 
noble people. The apostle Paul in one of his missionary tours tells us of 
coming into contact with people called Bereans. They searched the scrip- 
tures to see if the things they were telling them were true. That is all I 
ask of you, to search the scriptures and see if you are right. May God 
help us to stand bold and fearless in the defense of truth. May we overcome 
temptations and surround temptations eventually and finally receive the 
eternal crown that awaits the faithful. May God's richest blessings attend 
each and every one, and may His richest blessings attend this entire 
audience, and may God help us all who are not Christians to become 
Christians, and may He help us to live the Christian life that we may at 
last receive the crown that awaits the faithful. 

One thing I want to call attention to — the church sometimes spoken of 
as a kingdom. The church and kingdom are synonymous; Col. 1:18; called 
a body of Christ; Matt. 16:19; it is called the kingdom of beaven by the 
Savior himself. Why is it called the kingdom? Because of the govern- 
mental feature. The government of the kingdom of the Church of Jesus 
Christ is a monarchal government simply because Jesus Christ is a monarch. 
So the subjects have no right to change tjhe law; have no right to add to it 
or take from it. The man or set of men that does this does it at his own 
peril. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brother Moderators and Friends: I am before you 
for the purpose of closing the discussion on this proposition. I am going to 
talk this thirty minutes just as quick as I can. We have had a pleasant 
time so far, and we are going to continue having a pleasant time. 

In closing this discussion on this proposition there are some few things 
that I want to speak of, and it is well known that I cannot introduce any 
new argument on this proposition at all. I must notice the argument that 
has been given and sum up everything, if possible, that I can say that I 
have not said on this. When Brother Willis began this proposition he had 
things to establih. First, to establish the identity of the church; then the 
doctrine of the church; then the name of the church, and then the practices 
of the church. These four things were to have been established. He has 
been harping all the while on the name. He began right in the middle of 
his proposition. 

85 



He charged in his last speech that I paid no attention to the definition 
of his proposition that he gave. This audience here knows and remembers 
the statement that I made with regard to the definition that he gave to his 
proposition. I told : him I accepted his definition with regard to identity, and 
you remember that I told him that his definition had cut his head off. Don't 
you remember it? Yet he says I did not notice it. Says I, "You have cut 
your head off when you take the term identical to mean the same thing," 
and he did it, and then seeing that he made too far a jump he began and 
spent his time trying to prove similarity. But the curious part of it was, 
q? is, that he said "not similar," "not like" were the same things. You 
remember that illustration that I made with regard to the twin girls that 
went to school to me? You remember the answer that he came back to me 
with, to know whether they were the same blood. I said they are the same 
blood but they are not the same body. Don't you remember that? And 
don't you remember a moment ago he said that I had not paid any attention 
to his definition. Now if Brother Wjillis can stand such language as that I 
am willing for him to stand it. I would not be before this audience with 
that statement for every bit of the money in the Greenvi*lle banks. Don't 
you know I made the statement that his application had no more reference 
to the church that he belonged to than the Mormon church. There is not a 
man or woman but that knows I repeatedly told him that the definition had 
no more application to the church that he belongs to than it has to Mormon- 
ism, and I still say it and he has not tried to prove otherwise. Jle says I 
accepted the name. I accepted about fifty different names. Among them is 
the Church of Christ; he called it the family of God; the kingdom of God; 
the children of God, among them is my church. I accepted all of these 
churches, but I challenge him to prove either one was applied to a specific 
church, and he said they were not. I asked him for the chapter and verse 
where it was given to any body exclusive of all other denominations, and I 
did not get it. That is giving the thing up. If any one can tell the doctrine 
of that man's church I would like to have it written out and handed me. 
You do not know his position on faith; you do not know his position on 
repentance; you do not know his position on baptism, whether it is in the 
church or out of the church; you do not know whether communion is in the 
church or out of the church. You do not know why it is that you are not 
permitted to use instrumental music'; you do not know anything about it. 
You do not know his position on the operation of the Spirit. You do not 
know whether it operates direct or indirect, or through or where at all. 
Brother Willis has not told you. He has not told you a word about the 
reorganization. He has not told you whether a child of God was regen- 
erated at all. He has not told you what justification means. He has not 
told you what regeneration means. 

Now then I want to know hew many people in this audience that know 
intelligently what that man believes. If I were to call for a show of hands 
I would like to know. How many of you know whether Brother Willis be- 

86 



lieves that repentance is a literal belief or a fact stated, or whether he goes 
farther than that and reaches into tjhe trust, an implicit confidence in 
Christ, my Savior? How many of you know whether Brother Willis be- 
lieves that repentance is simply a turning around, or whether it means a 
change of heart and life and purpose, or whether baptism is in the church 
or out of the church, whether it is the door into the church or out of the 
church. Has he told you? How many of you heard him answer my argu- 
ment on Acts 2:38 in my last speech. I gave eighteen passages of scripture 
and made eighteen arguments on those passages of scripture. He said I 
had them laid back. I did. I did not do him like he did me. He gave me 
scripture after scripture, read them, called them off from memory — he never 
even read some of them — made his assertion and never even read them at 
all, and left it that way. I made an argument. I made him a clear, clean- 
cut syllogism on every passage of scripture I gave him, and he never 
answered me. In Acts 2:38 I gave you the definition, I gave you the con- 
struction of it and you accepted it and never said no. You never noticed it in 
any sense. This entire audience knows he never answered it. Here I said 
again in answer to his statement that Laslie believes he carried out the 
idea, that Laslie believes men were justified by faith alone — I read it; a 
saving faith includes repentance, sorrow for sin, (which is included in 
repentance), praying for pardon; and all of these are included in the faith 
that justifies, in the saving faith. Did he deny it? Did any one hear him 
deny it? Not one. It stands. Then going still further; now, if this is 
God's plan, all scriptures must harmonize with His plan; there can be no 
contradiction. Now there was room for an argument. Why didn't he say 
this was not God's plan? He did not say it. And by not saying it he 
accepted it as God's plan. 

Now again. Well, does Acts 2:38 harmonize with His plan? Let us 
see. First, Peter preached the gospel unto them; they heard it. Second, 
"They were pricked in their heart," were convicted. Third, they were then 
penitent, asking "What shall we do?" Fourth, Peter instructed them, 
verse 38. Now that they believed that Jesus is the Christ is certain, 
because they were pricked in their hearts; but that this is not enough before 
baptism is clear, for Peter commands repentance before baptism, in verse 
38. So then it is evident that the meaning of this passage depends on the 
purpose for which baptism is commanded in it, and this in turn depends on 
the meaning of the proposition eis, here translated, for, which is a bad 
translation, to say the least; but we will accept it as it is translated in the 
common version and even then we will be able to show that there need be 
no trouble in harmonizing the passage with God's plan as revealed in His 
words. In the Encyclopedic Dictionary, Vol. 2, pages 2158-9, we have the 
following definition for the word for. 1, "In the presence or s:'ght of"; 2, 
"In return for"; 3, "As a return for"; 4, "Because of"; 5, "By reason of"; 6, 
"With respect to"; 7, "With regard to." Take any one of these meanings, 
(and they are the first meaning given to the word), and apply it to Acts 

87 



2:38 and you will have the apostle's meaning exactly and in harmony with 
the teachings of the Bible on this subject, as follows: 

1, "Be ye baptized for (in the presence of) remission"; 2, "Be baptized 
in return for remission''; 3, "Be baptized by reason of remission"; 6, "Be 
baptized with respect to remission"; 7, "Be baptized with regard to remis- 
sion." In each instance it is to be seen that baptism refers to an act, and he 
did not deny it. All the way through that is as far as he has gone trying 
to prove his doctrine. In his last speech he referred to things that had 
nothing to do with the doctrines of <his church. I have told you over and 
over that other churches taught the same thing that you claim exclusively 
that you do, you have no more claim to being regarded the Church of Christ 
than they do to the Book of Mormon. I said that time and again; did he 
deny it? Has he undertaken to prove an individual name? In his last 
speech what did he say? He says the name is essential to the validity of 
the church. He tells us that the name is essential to the validity of the 
church. If it is then, Brother Willis, it was your duty to show that name 
was given by Divine authority. 

You said you would find an argument on "crematiso," but would not do 
it. I waited for your argument. You said the word came from "crematiso." 
Why didn't you place your argument there and say whether it was for the 
individual name of your denomination that was founded on the day of Pente- 
cost? You did not do it. You were afraid to make it. You knew that you 
were gone. You knew where you got if you got into "crematiso." 

Then wit|h reference to his grammar — I would like to see your book on 
grammar. Very well, my friend. I have written no book on grammar, but I 
am here to say this, with all due respect, I would not have brought it out at 
all had it not been for the insinuation or slur or unchristian act yesterday 
when he read from that history and applied to the General Baptists today 
with regard to ignorance, and I was determined to show who was ignorant 
today, and he stands there ignorant and unable to answer. That man does 
not know the difference between a transitive verb and a neuter verb. I want 
to say now that whenever you have done as I have done, whenever you have 
met the men I have met and have made the reputation that I stand on today, 
then you have a right to stand up and boast of your knowledge; but until 
you are able to make a second class, or even a first class certificate to teach 
in the eighth grade schools, for God Almighty's sake keep your mouth shut. 
Whenever a man comes to me on that score he may look out. 

(Moderator Hines.) He read it from history. The rule puts you on 
equal footing. 

(Elder Laslie.) Then keep your mouth shut if the rule puts us on 
equal footing. Now we are here to take the hide off, are we not? 

(Brother Willis.) Yes, this is a skinning machine. 

(Elder Laslie.) I have been in this thing so often that it is no new 
thing to me at all. My nerves are not all on the outside, and I am not mad 

88 



every time I look ugly. If I had any other face than the one I have I would 
certainly wear it. I am not two-faced at all. 

In as much as I have no new argument to make I want to go back and 
recapitulate a little bit. I want to exalt Brother Willis' beautiful exhorta- 
tion he made. He is a good exhorter, and as long as he exhorts he is all 
right, but when he gets into Biblical exigecies, God pity the poor man. 

Identical, the same thing that was organized and set up on the day of 
Pentecost. Then the similarity all the way through. One time he was 
telling us that the church was this; another time he was telling us it was 
that. He introduced numbers of names for the church here and says that 
the name is essential to the validity of the church, and then repudiates the 
name Christian as applied to the church. Willis versus Willis. If they 
were called Christians at Antioch, even if it was by Divine authority, what 
right has he to repudiate it if it is of Divine authority, if it is applied 
to the church? What right has he got to repudiate it? What right has 
he got to refuse to receive it? What right ( has he got to reject any of 
these names as specifically applied to the church? He says the name is 
essential to the validity of the church. Is it not a fact with regard to 
this church here that this church was organized as a Christian Church? I 
am going to leave this to the audience. I asked him and he whipped 
around it. He knows the condition of circumstances. This church, if I am 
rightly informed, was set up as a Christian church on ground deeded to it 
as a Christian church. When Brother Willis was called he accepted it on 
the ground they would reject the organ. Your name of the church was 
changed from Christian Church to Church of Christ, and the deed is not 
changed yet. 

Brother Willis.) What does that have to do with it? 

(Elder Laslie.) It shows you are eating your own words and preach'ng 
in a church that you condemn. Did changing the name make it a Church of 
Christ? What was the objection? Were the people any better? Were 
they any wiser, any nobler? Are you people any better? Are you any 
nearer God than you were before ? Are you any nearer Christ ? Have you 
any stronger hope of salvation than you had before ? Consistency is a whole 
casket of jewels. There is no consistency in that. 

Now Brother Willis takes up his origin. I showed to you the beginning 
of his church; he repudiated it. He brought up a book proposing to show 
the beginning or the origin of the General Baptist. That is true when 
Brother Willis is quoting it against the Baptist. From the same volume I 
showed him Alexander Campbell was the leader and the founder of his own 
church, and then he says it isn't true, and it is true when he hit the Baptists. 
The author states it is Baptist history. It is all right when he hits the 
Baptists and refers to it as authentic Baptist history. That same history 
that he says is authentic says Alexander Campbell is the leader of what 
resulted in the church. As far as baptism is concerned he has no baptism 
except what came from the Baptists. That is all the baptism he has, all 

89 



the baptism that they have had except that that came from the Baptists" ft? 
1812, adminisered by Elder Luce. Every one knows John Clark Ridpath is* 
standard authority in every state in the United States. I turn the book 
over to you to show that Alexander Campbell was the founder of the 
church. 1 showed you from the Students' Encyclopedia, and showed him 
that Alexander Campbell was the founder of his church. Therefore, if he 
has any respect for his own Standing as a minister of the gospel he dare 
not stand before an audience and dispute the authenticity of the splendid* 
authority used in all places of the land. He cannot afford to array himself 
against the brain and scholarship of the world. Not at all. Consequently 
it stands. There is where his church began. I called on him and showed 
him the force of the law; that if he impeaches a witness that it is the 
bounden duty of every court in the land to bring up the evidence to show 
and demonstrate that that witness is not true, and I called on him again 
and again, and I expect to use the same authors that I used before, and 
before he disputes these authors he must be ready to prove that they are- 
false. It must be done. His church begun by Alexander Campbell and 
they were first called Campbelites and then called Disciples of Christ, and 
then called Christians, and Burton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell had a 
wrangle over the word "Crematiso" and Alexander Campbell fought it. 

(Moderator Hines.) You are getting on new argument. 

(Elder Lasiie.) Then 1 will cut that out. I do not know whether it 
would be called new argument or not. The book has been introduced ail 
the way through. Then again he says in regard to baptism — I asked hint 
if he baptized a child of God or a child of the devil. He says it was one of 
John Hall's questions. Suppose it is? I ask him again, suppose it is that 
man's question or this man's question? Do you baptize a child of God or 
do you baptize a child of the devil? He said he baptized one that is dead 
to the love and practice of sin. Is he alive to anything? So you baptize a 
dead man to make him alive? How does baptism make a sinner alive? Is 
he a sinner if he is dead, is he a sinner? I said if he is a sinner he is a 
child of the devil, yet you baptize him; and yet if he is not a sinner he is a 
child of God and you baptize him ? I said do you baptize a child of God, or a 
ehiid of the devil? and that is the way he answered. Is foe a penitent 
believer? Is he a sinner, or is he a child of God? The Bible says in 18 
passages that he is saved. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
life. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, etc. I 
made the argument that everlasting life means saved, and those that believe 
m the Lord Jesus Christ have everlasting life and are saved. What did 
Brother Willis say? He says I believe they are saved on the grounds of 
faith, but not faith alorie. I called his attention to it that that faith includes 
repentance and praying for pardon, and everything that is connected with 
these kindred graces. Did he repudiate it? No. That character that comes 
to the minister for baptism, who repenting and believing, is justified and 
baptized On the ground of justification. Birth, my friends, don't give life 

90 



at all. The question still stands unanswered. If lie is dead what is lie dead 
10 ? That is the question I asked, if he is dead is he a sinner ? 12 he is alive 
Is he a child of God? Do you baptize a child of God or a child of the devil? 
He said I baptize one that is dead to sin. If he is dead to it he is not a 
dinner. A man that is dead to sin has ceased from sin. He is not a sinner. 
Then if he is not a sinner he is a child of God. Therefore baptism does not 
make him a child of God because he is already dead to sin. There are eigh- 
teen arguments that he has never answered. I cannot answer his argument 
on faith because lie has not made it; nor his argument on repentance because 
he has not made it; or whether baptism is the door into the church or whether 
it is in the church, or whether it is out of the 'church, because he has. not 
made it. I cannot answer his argument on instrumental music, because he 
has not made it. It was liis duty to show these people what the Church of 
Christ is in regard to all these things. He has left it out. He has no cum- 
munion; he left that out. He left out his music. Why? Because it is 
included by all ether denominations. They have "music in the church; they 
jhave praying; in the church and take up collections in the church. 

1 want to say tomorrow that the wool begins to fly on the other side, 
and I want to say to these people I am not feeding you taffy, and I do not 
^believe Brother "Willis is. This is twenty-one publ:'e discussions that I have 
liad and I have never liad such attention paid by an audience in my life. I 
am going away -from here and I will give that statement to our people at 
home. Now you may think I am jolting, out I am Tfiot. I am going to give 
the statement to the Butler County Republican when I get home that I had 
the best attention here that I ever had at a debate in my life. I have never 
liad a discussion that there was not more or less wrangling on the outside 
hy t^he people. I have heard others say the same thing. I have not seen 
•anybody discussing it, have you? 

(Brother Willis.) No, sir, I have not heard it. 

(Elder Laslie.) It is a commendable thing. We are all Kentuekians, 
and I believe in fair play. 

(Brother Willis.) I want to say a word or two of commendation. 1 
believe I made the statement once before that I never saw better order in 
my life at a discussion and have never seen as good order, and while Brother 
"Laslie says this is the twenty-first discussion he has had, this is the tenth 
discussion for me and I have engaged in ten public debates. I am a much 
younger man than Elder Laslie. Perhaps if I live to be as old as he, that 1 
will in ail probability held twenty-one more, if it is demanded. I Want to say 
this is a commendation, the good order of this community and the adjacent 
community. 

Adjourned to meet tomorrow at 10 a. m. 



THIRD DAY— SEPTEMBER 15, 1921. 

(Moderator Jones.) I will read you proposition No. 2: 

"The General Baptist churches, one of which I, T* A. H. Laslie, am a 

91 



member, are identical in origin, name, doctrine and practice with the churches 
of the New Testament." 

Rev. T. A. H. Laslie affirms; Rev. T. J>. Willis denies. Brother Laslie 
now has the floor for thirty minutes. 

(Elder Laslie.) Brother Moderators and Respected Audience: I rejoice 
this morning to be proud to stand before you in the defense of the truth in 
the affirmative of the proposition that has just been read in your hearing. 
I regard it as a special privilege to stand in defense in affirmation of the 
fundamental beliefs, doctrines and teachings of Christendom. It may seem 
strange to some of you, but I trust you will find it true before I finish my 
work in support of this proposition. 

I cannot for the life of me find it in my nature to injure and unchristian- 
ize and consign to perdition people that are enjoying the love of God, that 
have been made partakers of Christ in the forgiveness of sin, that have gone 
forth in the world, and are going forth on their missions of peace and their 
labors of love and of their errands of mercy and are perhaps turning and 
influencing men and women, boys and girls, to forsake a life of sin and 
accept a life of righteousness, more than I am myself. I cannot find it in 
my nature to injure and unchristianize 1}hat class of people and consign 
them to perdition because they do not believe some things exactly as I 
believe them. 

The history of the world is written in letters of fire. Its trail is marked 
with the blood of its martyrs. The funeral knell has been sounded by the 
requiem of the dying. The souls of the suffering martyrs have been borne 
to heaven on angelic wings. Today they are living in the presence of God. 
They may not have been united with me, not even called by my name. They 
may not have left their record in the "sands of time." They have made it 
possible for you and me to worship God according to the dictates of our own 
conscience. There are those before me today that belong to different de- 
nominations, as we call them. There are those before me today that take a 
different name from the name I bear. I have labored with different people 
that are represented here today. I have stood by the bedside of men and 
women when they were crossing the river of Death. I have held to their 
hands; I have listened to their shouts of victory. I have seen the pale lips 
move in murmuring the praise of God for*victory in a dying hour. Yet, they 
were not Baptists. Can I consign to perdition such people because they 
were not? Mercy, no, a thousand times no. I stand in defense of the 
gospel plan of salvation applicable to every race and kindred under the sun 
in their claim, under any and all conditions and circumstances of life. 

I shall spend two days in support of the proposition that I have just 
read and which I will read, and defend "TJie General Baptist churches, one 
of which I, T. A. H. Laslie, am a member, are identified in origin, name, 
doctrine and practice with the churches of the New Testament." Brother 
Willis doubtless thought I did not have sense enough to tell the people in 
the proposition what I thought myself, so he worded it. He assumed that 

92 



authority. I accepted it and I helieve it, notwithstand'ng. By the term 
""identical" I mean the same. By the term "origin" I mean beginning. By the 
term "name" I mean appellation under which we are known in different 
localities, different places and different times, and at different ages. By 
"doctrine" I mean the teachings, what we teach as necessary to salvation and 
government. By "practice" I mean the usages of our people. With regard 
to the identity of the church, I shall leave that proposition for the last, and 
"by the time I reach that the people will be able to decide that themselves. 
This audience will be able to decide the identity of the church when I get 
through. The first thing I will notice is the origin of the church; the next 
thing I want to notice is the doctrine of the church; the next thing I want 
to notice is the name of the church; the next thing I desire to notice is the 
practice of the church; then the next thing I desire to notice is the identity 
of the church. That is the logical order in which the proposition should 
have been stated. We cannot prove that one thing is identical with another 
until we have the two things before us, and we cannot prove that one church 
is identical with another church until we have the doctrines and practices 
of the church before us; then we can prove this identity. The comparison 
proves its identity or non-identity, one of the two. Here was Brother Willis' 
trouble. He undertook to prove the identity of a thing before it was born. 

With regard to the origin of the church, I shall not treat Brother Willis 
in this proposition as he treated me. I shall make an argument on every 
passage of Scripture I introduce. The first argument is that the General 
Baptist church is sound as to its origin. That is an assertion. That is not 
argument, is it? Brother Willis called them arguments when he made those 
assertions. I make that as an assertion, like a theorem in geometry. When 
I say the angle A equals the angle C and the angle B equals the angle C 
and the angle C equa ] s the angle A, therefore, it follows that the angle A 
must equal the angle B. It is not an argument for me to say that the angle 
A is equal to B, for things that are equal to the same thing are equal to 
each other. There is a difference between assertion and argument. 

The first — it was prophesied of the fathers, prophesied by the fathers, 
"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, 
which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other 
people, but it shall stand forever." Dan. 2:44. You remember this was one 
of Brother Willis' propositions. Now in the days of those kings, days there 
is plural; it refers to a period of time. Read Dan. 2:44 and you will find 
him interpreting a dream that the king had of a vision. When Daniel in- 
terpreted that vision and told what the head of gold was and what the king- 
dom of brass was and what the kingdom partly of iron and partly of clay 
with toes, mixed with the clay, when he told all about the meaning of that he 
said to the king, "Thou art this head of gold." Here were four different 
kingdoms that were brought before the people and hefore the king in a 
vision, '"And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay they shall 
mingle themselves with the seed of men; hut they shall not cleave one to 

93 



another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." It is not necessary to discuss 
the Roman, Graecian, the Mede and Persian empires. They all fell to pieces. 
"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, 
which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other 
people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it 
shall stand forever." Now if I should take the position that this prophecy 
was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, I would make the word "days" of 
these kings — I would have all four of these kingdoms running in one day. 
I would have all four of these kingdoms coming into existence and being 
destroyed in one day. The term "days," I have my Hebrew Bible and 
Hebrew Lexicon there. The term "days" means period of time. In the be- 
ginning God created the heavens and the earth, and at the close of the first 
period we find (some Greek words). In the days, in the periods of time in 
which these kings reigned the God in heaven set up a kingdom. My position 
in regard to that is that that is the prophecy concerning the transition of 
the theoretic kingdom of God under the prophetic age, passing out first from 
under the law and placed under the personal reign of Christ. Secondly, from 
under the personal reign of Christ, und,er the reign of the gospel dispensation, 
and that never was finished until the "Amen" in Revelations. Now see 
whether I prove it or not. Then again, "days" is not singular. Day is 
singular. Days of those kings and day of Pentecost is different. Pentecost 
was one day. During the reign of these kings it took the entire period. "And 
prophecy concerning the church, the theoretic church, the church that was 
promised, given our father Abraham, as all scholars agree. "Thou shalt 
bring them in and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the 
place, Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, 
O Lord, which thy hands have established." Ex. 15:17. We learn in this 
preparation, preparatory work, that God had, a place of worship; Jhad a 
sanctuary; that He established it; that there was a people that was to be 
brought from under the Abrahamic dispensation and placed under another 
dispensation, which you will notice presently, passed from under the law 
and placed in the prophetic dispensation to the dispensation of Jesus Christ 
on earth, under the gospel dispensation. "Judah was his sanctuary, and 
Israel his dominion." Psa. 114:2. Now he is speaking in the past tense. 
Away back there under the Abrahamic age the Psalmist says, "Judah was 
his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion." This has reference to that body of 
people that went under the law, the covenant that he made with Abraham. 
"Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob." 
Isa. 2:3. Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the Jiouse of the God 
of Jacob. Then God had a place of worship back there. God had a people; 
they were under the law. This was the church in preparation. You remem- 
ber that these were introduced yesterday, but not for the purpose that we 
introduce them today. Isa. 2:3, "I saw in the night visions and, behold, one 
like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient 
of days and they brought him near before him. And there was given him 

94 



dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, 
should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion ,which shall not 
pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Dan. 7:13-14. 
I want to ask Brother Willis whether or not Jesus Christ had come to the 
earth then or not ? I want to ask Brother Willis whether or not Jesus Christ 
had come to the earth when the glory of the kingdom was given him ? I ask 
you whether or not Jesus Christ, when he was brought before the Ancient of 
days had ever been crucified or not? Whether or not this was on the day 
of Pentecost? Dan. 7:13-14. This all took place before the time specified 
in the opposite proposition. But the saints of the Most High shall take the 
kingdom and possess the kingdom until the Ancient of days come, and 
judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time come that 
saints possessed the kingdom, the kingdom and dominion and the greatness 
of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the 
saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all 
dominions shall serve and obey Him. Now we find that service of all 
dominions is in the future tense. We find this kingdom was given in the 
past tense to the one like unto the Son of Man. We find that when He is 
come He finds the kingdom here and takes charge and delivers it to the 
people before He leaves it. Luke says, "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as 
my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table 
in my kingdom." God gaveth the Son a kingdom before He came here, before 
He came to the earth. God put all power in His hands. Jesus said, "All 
power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." The prophet says the same 
thing; and if all power is given unto Him the power of the kingdom is given 
unto Him. He said to the disciples, I appoint you to a kingdom (He gave 
me this kingdom before I give it to you). This was before the day of 
Pentecost. (Luke 22:29-30, I think is the passage.) "And in that day will 
I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches 
thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 
That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which 
are called by My name." Amos 9:11-12. At that time will I raise up the 
tabernacle of David that is fallen down. The day of Pentecost came to the 
disciples and the gospel was preached to the Jew. In the Acts of the 
Apostles we find when Peter preached to the Gentiles there he said, "Of a 
truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons;" and the Holy Spirit 
fell on all them that heard the word. Peter said, "Can any man forbid 
water, that these should not be baptized?" seeing that they received the 
Holy Ghost. Now in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we see 
whether these should be received without circumcision. They taught that 
they could not be received without circumcision, and they went up to 
Jerusalem, the apostles and elders did not consider about this matter. What 
was the result? Peter said, men and brethren, harken unto me. You know 
how that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles by 
mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. Now if the testimony 

95 



of man is great and the testimony of angels is greater, the testimony of Gad 
is greater than all. "And God, which knoweth all hearts, bare them witness 
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto uS; and put rib difference' 
between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." The Gentiles were 
received in it On the same equality of the Jews, according to the prophet 
Daniel and according to the prophet I gave you, here was" another step 1 in 
the transition Of the ehurch. 

Now again. Amos 0:11-12. "It! the last days it shall come to pass, that 
the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the 
mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills'; and all nations shall flow 
unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go to the 5 
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach 
Us of His ways and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth 
the law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.* Micah 4:2. Here is 
the plural again. Otherwise it would not be in the plural number. But in 
the last days, in the last period, in the last times, during this period that he 
is prophesying of, Micah is prophesying all this shall be accomplished in the 
last days. Not one particular day, but a continued period of time, all these 
things that the prophet speaks of occur. So we have a church in prophecy. 

Again, sing and rejoice. We have use for these [Scriptures again. "Sing? 
and rejoice, daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst 
of thee, saith the Lord. And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that 
day, and shall be My people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou 
shalt know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent Me unto thee. And the Lord 
shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem! 
again/'' Now let us look at this a moment. You remember this was one of 
Brother Willis' talks yesterday. Zech. 2:10-11-12. "Sing and rejoice, O 
daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith 
the Lord." Daughter of Zion. The Lord came to the daughter of Zion. The 
brother's definition is that Zion is Jerusalem. Then the daughter, if Jeru- 
salem is the mother of us all, is the church, isn't it? "Lo, I come, and I will 
dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. And many nations shall be joined 
to the Lord in that day and shall be my people.' 1 ' When were they joined? 
They were joined to the Lord. They were joined to that people that the Lord 
Was dwelling among\ The Gentiles were joined to those people from the? 
house of Cornelius over here. "And thou shalt know that the Lord of Hosts 
hath sent Me unto thee. And the Lord shall inherit Judah his portion in the 
holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again." They cannot inherit a thing' 
that does not exist, don't you know? You cannot inherit money that does not 
exist. If your father dies insolvent, what is the result? Can you inherit 
anything? You cannot inherit the money that does hot exist; and Jesus 
inherited His kingdom when He came to it. "Blessed are your eyes, for they 
see; and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many 
prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, 
4nd have not seen themj and to hear those things which ye hear, and have 

96 



not heard them." Matt. 13:16-17, Jesus had come and taken possession of 
His kingdom. Jesus had come to exercise the power given Him from His 
Father. He had been recognized as His Father's Son. Jesus was manifesting 
His power and the old prophets had never seen this thing. 

Then again, "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:18. Sometimes that means to 
build, as to build a house; to strengthen, to expand, to enlarge, establish 
something on a firm foundation. "Upon this rock I will build my church 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Thou are Peter and on 
this rock (Christ) I will build my church. One having reference to a frag- 
ment of rock and the other to a rock or mass or bed foundation. Thou art 
Petros (Peter); come, Peter, I will build my church; I will establish it. It 
Was under the law first. It was under the prophetic age. I will build my 
church on the rock, on the rock Christ Jesus. Thou art Peter and on this 
rock, Christ, they drank of that rock and it was Christ. Whenever you get 
off of that you get off of the foundation of the church, but it is established 
on Jesus Christ and it took some time to build it. A house is not built in a 
moment or a day; it is built in a period of time. Let us turn a little bit 
further. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am 
glad of the privilege of taking the negative of the proposition just read and 
on which one speech has gone into history, in its defense. The rules governing 
this discussion require the affirmative to define the terms of his proposition; 
but before we notice his definitions I want to call attention to one statement 
in his introductory remarks. He says he is glad, in his first statement, to 
stand in defense of the truth. We will see whether or not he is standing in 
the defense of the truth before he gets through with this proposition. I have 
eight terms in his proposition that need to be defined under the rules govern- 
ing this discussion. He must define these terms. 

(Elder Laslie.) I rise to a point of order. 

(Brother Willis.) Get him a piece of ice. 

(Elder Laslie.) I took those terms one at a time, and you will do the 
same thing, or I will appeal to the audience. 

(Moderator Hines.) The first rule says the point should be clearly 
defined, that there should be no misconstruction. 

(Elder Laslie.) If you do not accept this I will call on the audience. 
I will define them again if you want me to. 

(Moderator Jones.) He defined the terms just like you defined them 
yesterday. 

(Moderator Hines.) You did not define them at all. 

(Brother Willis.) "The General Baptist churches, one of which I, 
T. A. H. Laslie, am a member, are identical in origin, name, doctrine and 
practice with the churches of the New Testament." Did he define General 
Baptist churches? Did you define churches? I deny it. You never told us 

97 



what you meant by the use of the term" churches. You never tofd uS wha't 
you meant by the use of the term General Baptists. You did not tell us what 
you meant by being a member of one of these General Baptist churches. Telt 
us what you meant by being a member of one. I will deal fair with you. 1 
noted your definitions and you accepted my definition day before yesterday 
on the term identical. It simply means the same. I am glad you havfe- 
accepted that this morning. Stay with it, Elder, He said that is a correct 
definition and he has accepted it this morning. The same identical institu- 
tions; not likeness or similarity, but the same institution of the church in the* 
New Testament. Origin, he defined that. He said it meant beginning. Be- 
ginning of what? Beginning of the General Baptist church? That is what- 
your proposition calls for. He defined the term "name." He says it means- 
appellation. He defined the term "doctrine." He says it means teachings* 
I accepted those definitions. He defined "practice" to mean the usages of 
the people. Did he define New Testament? The audience knows whether he 
defined it or not. The first rule governing this discu&sion requires at your 
hands the definition of the term New Testament. I defined yesterday the* 
New Testament, the twenty-seven books beginning with Matthew, closing' 
with the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. You did not object 
to that. 

Now, one other thing he said yesterday in his closing speech that 1 
want to notice. 

(Elder Laslfe.) That proposition is done, Brother Moderator, That 
proposition is- closed. 

(Moderator Hines.) He has a right to reply to that, 

(Brother Willis-.) Your seat is gett'ng hot. Get him some ice. 

(Elder Laslie.) I will debate your proposition ten days if you want to* 

(Brother Willis.) He said yesterday evening in his closing speech, when 
f took charge of the church at Cherry Grove that there was an organ in the 
6hurch. I deny it; that the Church of Christ at Cherry Grove ever did owrt 
an organ. There was one put in the church here during the meetings held 
by Elder Durham and was here probably a week, but when I took charge of 
ftiis church there was no organ in it; ft was taken out. So far as the deed 
of this property is concerned, some say it is deeded to the Christian church 
and some say to the Church of Christ, I don't care about the deed, and there 
has been some meddling around investigating the deed and one D. D., 
especially yesterday and I Want to say to you he is going to have to enter 
into a discussion in the city of Greenville, or go to the wall. We are here to 
fight the whole flock. I read to you the church record that says the Church 
of Christ at Cherry Grove, Kentucky, was organized in the year 1874, and 
that has gone into the notes. Now reply to it if you want to. In justice to 
myself and to my people this needed to be replied to. Other things that 
are said I do not care anything about them. 

Origin of General Baptist church. Origin: He says it is sound in 
Origin, That is an assumption; you have to prove it is sound. You put your 



inane to that proposition that says, "General Baptist churches, one of which 
1 am a member, are identical in origin, name, doctrine and practice with the 
churches of the New Testament," and show its identity from the beginning. 
Yes, sir, something doing. Dan. 2:44. A kingdom prophesied of. "In the 
days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall 
never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, hut 
it shall break in pieces and shall consume all these kingdoms, and it shall 
-stand forever." Was that kingdom the General Baptist church? I don't 
"have to prove anything now. You are in the affirmative now and you have 
some things to prove. You said you have had quite an experience with our 
people. You are going to have a little more, Elder. I deny that kingdom 
l)eing the Baptist church, either general, particular, or any other kind. 
Furthermore, will you admit that kingdom and church are synonymous? 
Baptist churches generally say a kingdom is one institution and the church 
an entirely different institution. What are you going to do about it? Gen. 
12:3, he says that is a prophecy concerning the church. He doesn't know 
the difference between a promise and a prophecy, he is so badly confused. 
This is the promise concerning Christ. God promised to Abraham, "I will 
make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; 
and thou shalt be a blessing; And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse 
them that curseth thee." We have the gospel in promise, and we turn to 
Gal. 3 and there we have Paul referring to this promise as being fulfilled 
in Christ. There you are, Elder. That is a promise. 

(Elder Laslie.) Give your reference. 

(Brother Willis.) Gen. 12:13; Gal. 3; Exo. 15:17. People had a place 
to worship. Who were they? The Israelites, and you can call it a church 
if you wish. They were called out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. 
He was a law-giver and a mediator. Was that the Baptist church? Was that 
the General Baptist church? He says that is a church in prophecy and we 
will find it later. I want it to go on record he will not find General Baptist 
church in the lids of the Bible, and he has obligated himself to find it in the 
New Testament. It isn't in the lids of the Bible. Mark it down. I want 
that to go into the record. Isa. 2:2-3. "And it shall come to pass in the 
last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the 
top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations 
shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us 
go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of JaCoo; and 
He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of 
Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." 1 
pressed him in every way in my speech yesterday to tell whether or not Zion 
w r as Jerusalem. I think he answered in his last speech, if I didn't misunder- 
stand him, but he dodged that in every speech he made. In Isa. 28:16 1 
called attention to this, and I affirmed that Zion was Jerusalem and there 
is where I have driven the stake and it is going to stand. He didn't pull it 
up. It has gone on record and I am proud of it. I asked him to tell what 

99 



Zion meant; was it Jerusalem? He dodged it in every speech. If I under- 
stood him yesterday evening he said Zion was a church. Silence gives con- 
sent. All right. An old debater sometimes steps into a trap, and into it he 
goes. Isa. 28:16. "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried 
stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not 
make haste." That is about like the general foundation, in a mess. You have 
the foundation up in the building. You walked into it all right, Elder. Let 
us go up to the house of God, the house of the God of Jacob. Was that the 
General Baptist church? If so, did they have a New Testament law? Were 
we not under the law of Moses? Dan. 7:13-14, and came to the Ancient of 
days ; He received a dominion of glory and a kingdom. Who were the Ancient 
of days? He asked here had Jesus Christ come to earth? Jesus Christ left 
the earth and He ascended to heaven and went to the Ancient of days, which 
is God, and you know that as well as I do, and He received a dominion, a 
glory and a kingdom, not when He was on earth, but after He went to heaven. 
After He appeared at the Ancient of days He received a dominion and glory 
and kingdom, and that wasn't the General Baptist church, either, and the 
General Baptist church was no part of it. Luke 19. Raised up the taber- 
nacle of David which is fallen down and will build on the ruins thereof. What 
was that tabernacle that had fallen down? Was that the Jewish church or 
the house of David? Tell us, Elder, in your next speech what tabernacle 
that was. Did Christ build out of the ruins, or remodel the old Jewish 
church? In Matt 16:18 you said it meant to enlarge. I call in question the 
definition. Now quote that correct. I know some Greek and I can give you 
some if necessary. 

(Elder Laslie.) Give us the meaning of it. 

(Brother Willis.) We have Thayer. I say it does not mean to enlarge. 
Christ did not mean, when he said "I will build My church," that "I will 
enlarge My church." He did not mean "I will edify." I debated with a 
Baptist once and he was a scholar. He tried to connect Matt. 16:18 with 
Acts 9:1. Edify simply means to build up and enlarge, and the term build, 
in Matt. 16:18, means to found, to establish and to build a house. That is 
what Thayer says. 

Acts 15. He says they had the question of circumcision and the law in 
the church on Pentecost. What did they do with it? They decided that 
circumcision was not binding and the law of Moses was not binding any 
more, and that the law of enmity that stood as a wall between the Jew and 
Gentile nations was broken down in the body of Christ. Eph. 2:14-15. For 
He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle 
wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even 
the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself 
of twain one new man, so making peace." So that enmity was abolished in 
the death of Jesus Christ. That was broken down and one man made a new 
church. You remember I gave you Scripture after Scripture yesterday to 
show you the institution was brand new; a new law, a new churqh and a 

100 



new name. "Not a Temodeled institution, hut a new church and a new name. 
The last days of the Lord's house shall be established in the mountains. He 
never did tell us yesterday what was meant by the last days. I told you 
plainly and earnestly yesterday that the last days referred to the Christian 
dispensation. Did you question that? No, indeed, you did not. You did 
not tell us what the last days referred to. Will you tell us today? The 
mountain of the Lord's house was established in the top of the mountains 
and the Holy Spirit was poured out in the last days, Joel 2; so Peter quotes 
Joel's prophecy to show it was fulfilled on that very day, on Pentecost. 

Zech. 2:10-11-12. I will come and dwell in Zion; I will dwell in Zion, in 
Jerusalem. When? Why didn't yon read Zech. 1:16? That quoted it; also 9 
in Zech. 2. That prophet said the Lord will come with mercies to Zion, and 
He said I will build in that city; I will buiid in Zion. He is coming with 
mercy. When? When did he build the house? He came on the day of 
Pentecost. He came in Spirit. He came in power, and hence the house of 
the Lord was built in the mountains in fulfillment of the prophecy in the 
City of Jerusalem. Matt. 13:15-16. See and hear these things. See and 
hear what things ? Yes, there were many prophets and holy men in ancient 
■days who longed to see these things that were occurring in the ministry of 
Christ. What were those things? The gospel preached to the poor; the 
blind eye opened; the deaf ear unstopped; the sick healed, and the dead raised 
to life again. Matt. 16:18. Future tense; to enlarge Christ as the rock. 
Jesus Christ simply met them and said I wi'l build my church. He simply 
meant that I am going to enlarge the old Jewish church that has been handed 
down from Ahraham. (I have in your notes here in a discussion with Elder 
McKinley, and I moderated in that discussion a few years ago.) He declared 
that the old Baptist church was handed down, or that the old Jewish church 
was handed down through three dispensations. Hence he argues now and 
says "I will build My church" simply means to enlarge it and edify it. He 
simply means to establish it, to found it, to huild a house. That is what he 
means, and he says it is future tense. Was that the General Baptist church ? 
Tell us, Eider, in your next speech. Christ says to Peter, "Petros" — there 
was no use of you giving those Greek terms. You have to get down to 
English. "Peter, on this rock I build My church and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." Was that a Baptist c,hurch? You affirm it and it 
is up to you to prove it, sir. I want to repeat with emphasis not a trace of 
the General Baptist church is found anywhere in the Bible. Come to judg- 
ment. That is all the latitude you need. His proposition calls for an estab- 
lishment or the origin of General Baptist churches in the New Testament 
Let him point it out. He has two days, and I want you General Baptists to 
take notice, and I want to say to you that after this discussion is over, if 
you can put your finger on the book, chapter and verse anywhere in the 
Bible that shows General Baptist church or churches 1 will give you five 
dollars. I won't stop at that, either. I want to say now, these two gentle- 
men wouldn't have signed this proposition if they hadn't been dragged into it. 

101 



(Elder Laslie.) Prove that. 

(Brother Willis.) He will have to be dragged out. Did you ever sign 
a proposition like this before? He knew better. He simply knows that 
cannot be proven. He cannot prove his proposition and there is not a man 
on earth that can do it. Now you have two days. Get to business and go 
to the New Testament and point out to us the General Baptist church. Tell 
us what you mean by General Baptist. I think I know the meaning of the 
word general. There are two kinds of Baptists, generally speaking. There 
is the general kind and the particular kind. The general kind are general 
in everything and particular in nothing; the particular kind are particular 
in everything and general in nothing. 

I want to read Matt. 16:18. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church" (note the fact that Jesus 
says "My church;" the church of Christ, the churches in the primitive age 
were the Churches of Christ, not Baptist churches, were the churches of 
Christ); "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever tjiou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Was that kingdom of heaven a 
General Baptist church ? Could you say it was the same identical institution 
in the 18th verse ? Church and kingdom are used synonymous by the Saviour 
in this passage, and so on Pentecost, as I told you yesterday, He builded 
His church, He established His kingdom and the apostle Peter had the keys 
with the authority to bind and loose and whatsoever he bound on earth was 
bound in heaven, and whatsoever he loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. 

Here is a little yellow-back book that I hold in my -hand which is the 
General Baptist creed. I have quite a bundle of creeds. "Doctrines and 
Usages of General Baptists." I am sure the Elder won't go back on this 
creed, because he is one of the twelve men that devised the thing, and I am 
going to charge him with being an apostle of the General Baptist church. 
He is one of the pillars under that building. Let us see. They called them 
Committee. D. B. Montgomery, Wilson Blackburn, Jesse G. Lane, Absalom 
Pearce, Thomas J. Davis, Thomas M. (Strain, George W. Moore, William 
Clark, T. A. H. Laslie, D. L. Fraser, John V. Poole and A. D. Williams, 
twelve men; twelve apostles; pillars under the General Baptist church. He 
likes it all right, doesn't he? Elder, this little thing will look as big as a 
mountain to you at the judgment. "The Law of the Lord is perfect, con- 
verting the soul." Psa. 19. The law of the Lord is a perfect law; it is a 
perfect law of liberty. It will make the comers and the goers thereto perfect. 
The apostle James in the first chapter, 25th verse, says, "But whoso looketh 
into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a for- 
getful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." 
In the perfect law of liberty, and the man that looks into this law and con- 
tinues therein, this man will be blessed in his deeds or in his doings. Is 
this a perfect law ? It is a human creed devised by mortal, fallible man. 

102 



(Elder Laslie.) Brothers and Moderators and Friends: I am not going 
to take any exceptions to anything Mr. Willis says. I understand his tactics 
and all that, but I want to introduce his lexicon just a little bit with regard to 
the verb (here quotes Greek). 

(Brother Willis.) Give the meaning as given in Matt. 16:18. That is 
What we want. 

(Elder Laslie.) And then, by reason of the strength, thy faith shall 
be my principal support in the establishment of my church. The definitions 
are italicized. It is not a definition of the word; it is his discussion of the 
term. Can't you see it is not italicized? It is not a definition of the term 
at all. He is putting Thayer's discussion of the word as a definition. He 
said it was a definition when it is not a definition. It is Thayer's discussion 
of the word. "By reason of the strength, thy faith shall be my principal 
support in the establishment of my church." What does that say? Thou 
are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. You know he said it did 
not mean establish. "By reason of the strength of thy faith, Peter, thou 
shalt be my principal support in the establishing of my church, and not in 
the building." 

(Brother Willis.) I did not say it didn't mean establish; it means 
enlarge. 

(Brother Laslie.) It does not mean from the beginning and it does not 
mean to build from the beginning and his own lexicon condemns him. Now 
let us see what Robertson says. "To build up, establish, to confirm * * * * 
a temple of God erected upon the one, only foundation, Jesus Christ." 1st 
Cor. 3:9-10; Eph. 2:21, as in Matt. 16:18. What does it mean? To build 
Up, to establish, to confirm. There is the definition, italicized like it is in 
your book, but the remark there is just like it is in your book. Here is the 
definition, to build up, to establish. 

(Brother Willis.) I said it did not mean to enlarge. 

(Elder Laslie.) I said to establish in the sense of enlarge. TJiat is 
what you meant and, consequently, the word establish does not mean to 
enlarge, according to the testimony here and according to the interpretation 
in his own book, in Matt. 16 and in Robertson, it does mean to confirm and 
to enlarge, according to his book and according to mine and he can't get 
out of it to save his life. I am acquainted with all of these little dodges 
and understand there is a classical meaning to every one of these. We are 
in a Biblical sense now. 

Now in regard to the organ question. I know nothing about that only 
what I have been told. I have nothing disrespectful to say about it. I asked 
Brother Willis if when he was called to this church to preach to these people 
if he did not require them to take that organ out of the church. 

(Brother Willis.) No, sir. 

(Elder Laslie.) Did you, or did you not, write to them and tell them 
when the organ was out of the church to write to you and let you know and 
you would come? Did you, or did you not, do that? 

103 



(Brother Willis.) No, sir, 1 did not. There was? ntf organ iff the <murcf* 
and I can prove it. I said there was an organ introduced in there and they' 
didn't use it but two or three nights. 

(Elder Laslie.) It stayed two days, didn't it?' You sinned for two* 
days, didn't you? 

(Brother Willis.) I never brought it up. There is sonle statement there? 
and that is why I followed it. 

(Elder Laslie.) I will follow you to eternity If you are ncft satisfied', 
t say, sir, that if that organ Was in there at Ml you eat your words. If it 
Was a condemned sin for the" organ to be in cnurch they are Condemfleot 
two days. 

(Brother Willis.) The question was as to whether or not it was in there, 

(Elder Laslie.) You said it was in there two days, arid I say if it was 
In there two days, and if it Was a condemned' sin, they sinned two 
days and, according to his statement, they were not the Church of Christ 
for two days. 

(Moderator Hihes.) 1 rise to a point Of order, You stated that the 4 
organ was in the church and that Brother Willis wrote for them to take it 
out and he would preach to them. That statement is absolutely false. 

(Elder Laslie.) You see how hard this thing dies. He brought it up? 
it was his' business. I brought this up before in my last speech. Didn't 1 
bring up these records; ? 

(Brother Wilis.) No, sir,' I have it in your last speech, 

(Brother Laslie.) As long as you want to debate this, I will debate it 
as long as you want to. 

Then again, with regard to some few meddling with regard to the deed! 
Of the church, I asked him about the deed. He did not know about the deed, 
t have this to say about it, if I have been rightly informed the property 
stands today deeded to the Christian church. Now it remains for him to 1 
clear that out of the way. He says, "I deny these things; deny everything" 
that Laslie has introduced," but, my friends, he is here to answer arguments, 
not merely to deny. I made this statement before the people that the first 
thing wag to establish the origin of the church; the next thing to establish 
the doctrine of the church; the next thing to establish the name of the church, 
and then to establish the practice of the church, and then to establish the 1 
identity of the church. I am talking on the origin of the church now, the 
church of God. Then we will name it when we get it built and get the 
doctrine in it. I Will tell you people to name it yourself and you will. I 
made twelve different arguments on twelve different passages of Scripture 
and Brother Willis got up here and he said, "1 deny; I deny; I deny; it isn't 
so,, sir; I deny it, sir/' Then when it comes to denying by argument I could 
say to Brother Willis the first thing when he came to his proposition, I 
could come up and say to him, "Brother Willis, I deny it,*" therefore, it is* 
gone. "I deny it." Brother W T illis, the fact of the business is that you 
haven-'t got the consummate gall to tackle an argument I gave you. 

104 



"Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious 
corner stone, a sure foundation." Isa. 28:16. I want to turn to that for the 
connection. Listen, I will read the preceding paragraph: "Wherefore hear 
the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in 
Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and 
under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, 
Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner 
stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment 
also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail 
shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding 
place." I told you when that was introduced I would discuss Zion at the 
proper time. Now the question is with regard to this passage of Scripture, 
"I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone." That stone that was laid here was 
Christ, the sure foundation, one of the Father's elect, a precious corner stone, 
and again, the stonebuilders rejected — the same was a corner. Thou art 
Peter; on this rock I wiU build my church. I gave you the definition of the 
Hock, which meant Christ, and he did not dispute it. In Isaiah the same 
Christ, the same Being, the same Creature, the same Savior that came in 
the world is the Redeemer of Men. Understand, Brother Wiillis has not 
denied it. When we come to naming the church of God you will get all of 
Zion that you want. But only one at a time. 

Again, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Eph. 2:20. The church 
was built upon the foundation, upon Jesus Christ, He being the chief corner 
stone. Now where was the stone laid? What does the church rest on? 
I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone. Brother Willis will be surprised 
when he finds out where that word Zion, what it has reference to, to the 
laying of the foundation of the church of the living God. We haven't got 
to that yet. Eph. 2:20. Christ came as a king. Behold thy king cometh 
unto thee. We have the foundation laid; Jesus Christ being the chief 
cornerstone in Isa. and Eph. What was he afterward; what was the power 
of Christ while on earth? He (Christ) came as a king. Turn to Zfech. 
9:9. "Behold thy King cometh unto thee: he is just and having salvation; 
lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." Here is 
a prophecy, thy king cometh. It is a question of veracity of the prophet 
Zechariah, or Christ was a king. Zech. says, "Behold, thy King someth." 
How does he come? Riding upon an ass, a colt, the foal of an ass; in 
another place lowly and riding upon a colt, the foal of an ass. The king 
cometh, and that tells how he came, the humility in which he comes. We 
are taught he rode; rode through the streets of Jerusalem on this colt. 
What did the people do? They threw garlands in his path; the crowd 
shouted hosanna and they rebuked and he said if these should be rebuked 
even the stones would cry out. Was He king then? Could He be a king 
without a kingdom? Zech. 9:9. These are questions that the brother 
must answer. The statement is that Jesus Christ came as a king. The 

105 



argument is in £ech. 0:0 that He came aS a king riding on" a" dolt; that the 
people recognized Him as a king and to all intents and purposes it is' 
only a question of veracity of whether He was a king or not. If Brother 
Willis has the authority to stand up here and say Jesus Christ was not a 
king, let him do it, "Saying, go ye into the village over against you; in 
which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet twain never 
gat; loose him, and bring him unto me. And If any man ask you, Why do 
ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of 
him. All Of this was done that it might be fulfilled that was spoken of the* 
prcphet saying, tell the daughter of Zion behold thy King coffieth unto* 
thee; lowly, and sitting upon art ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass; 
Matt. 2135, Tel! the daughter of Ziort— who was the daughter of Zion? 
Tell the daughter of Zion, behold, thy King cometh. Was he a King ? 
They were ordered to tell it. Jesus Christ told the disciples to tell those 
people, according to the prophet, that the Lord hath need of him. Accord- 
ing to the" prophecy it Was for 1 the purpose of fulfilling the words of the 
prophet, "Behold, thy King someth." Saying, tell the daughter of Zion,, 
behold, thy King cometh unto thee, sitting upon an ass, and the colt the 
foal of an ass. "Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the 
Lord." Luke 19:38. Also Luke 19':30-37. It is a question of veracity 
here. "Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord." Was- 
Jesus a King? If so, what was he king over? What kingdom did God 
give to him? Was it a political kingdom of Israel, or was it a theocratic 
church?" Which was it? 

Then again "Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying Behold the mart 
whose name is the branch;' and he shall grow up out of his place, and he 
Shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall, 
sit and rule upon his throne, and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and 
the counsel of peace be between them both." Zech. 6:12-13. Now there is a 
prophecy concerning that.' Listen, "Yet have I set my king upon my holy 
hill of Zion."' Psa. 2:6. We have a prophecy concerning His priesthood; in 
the second place We have a priesthood. Concerning His being king, "Yet 
have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." It is only a question of 
veracity. He came a priest according to the prophecy. "Behold, a king* 
shall reigrt in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment/' Isa. 32 :L 
Here he is called a king and prince. "Thine eyes shall see the king in his 
beauty/' Isa. 33:17. My argument is on the question of veracity, that if 
these prophecies are not fulfilled while Christ was on earth, these prophecies 
Were a failure. "1 will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king 
shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely." When? 
In his days; in the days of Christ. "And I will raise unto David a righteous 
branch and a king" and when this shall be done "Judah shall be saved, and 
Israel be called, The Lord Our Righteousness." Jer. 23:5-6. Was that 
Accomplished during the reigrt of Jesus Christ on earth ? Was Israel saved ? 

106 



Did" "he execute a great plan of atonement on the earth whereby tire 'whole 
world may be saved? If not there is no truth in prophecy. "Where .is he 
that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and 
are come to worship him." He was born king. Matt. 2:2. That says he 
is a king. Now then again was it true? Did Matt, tell the truth in his 
record? "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the gov- 
ernment shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, 
Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Piince of Peace. 
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the 
throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with 
judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the 
Lord of hosts will perform this." Isa. 9:6-7. His name is called Wonder- 
ful, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Here is 
the unity of the godhead in Christ. Here is the full power in Chr'st. Here 
is power as a Councellor. Here is the unity with the Father, the Prince of 
Peace. Here He is King. Of the increase of his government there shill be 
no end; upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom — he shall sit upon 
the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it 
with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. Isa. 9:6-?. 
"He shal be called great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and 
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father Davids And he 
shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall 
be no end." Luke 1:32-33. If he did not begin to reign over the house of 
Judah until he entered heaven his kingship is only limited to the house of 
Judah. Luke 1:32-33. "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath 
appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, 
and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:29-30. 
Jesus said "I appoint you a kingdom, as my father hath" h-a-t-h, it perfect 
tense, denoting a past action, an action performed or t : me continued even 
unto the present, hath appointed it, given it unto me. Now I appoint it to 
you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on 
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke 22:29-30. "Lord, remem- 
ber me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Luke 23:42. Do you remember 
that statement? That is always introduced to prove that Christ did not 
have a kingdom until He went to heaven. He ruled it on earth. It extended 
in heaven. Let me tell you, friends, if you ever expect to enter the kingdom 
-of God in heaven you have got to belong to the kingdom of God on earth, 
and this prophecy will not tell you anything else. If Judah expected to be 
in the kingdom of Christ in heaven he had to be in the kingdom of Christ on 
earth. You have to get right in this earth before you are right in the next 
world. Therefore Christ Jesus when He came into this kingdom must have 
founded it on earth. You have to enter the kingdom of God on earth before 
you enter it in heaven, so, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy 
kingdom." Some one says is that divine? No. That was the cry of a 
penitent on the cross, a robber, red-handed, convicted, penitent, "Lord, re- 

107 



member me when thou comest into thy kingdom." That man was not a 
theologian. That man knew not the meaning of the kingdom of heaven. He 
knew that Christ had a kingdom above and he wanted to be remembered 
there. "Nathanael answered and said unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of 
God; thou art the King of Israel." John 1:49. "Thou art the Son of God; 
thou art the King of Israel." Who revealed that unto him? Did he tell 
the truth, or did Nathanael tell the truth? Nathanael confessed him as 
King of Israel and the Son of God. Did he tell the truth about it? I want 
to ask Brother Willis about it. "He that is of the earth is earthly, and 
speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all." John 3:31. 
Was Christ above all in earth in authority, in power ,in sonship, in king- 
ship, if He was not a king, He was not above the kings of the earth. There- 
fore He was a king because He was above all. Then again, "The Father 
loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35. The 
kingship is one of the "all things." Therefore He made Him king. He was 
a king but the kingdom is one of the "all things." Therefore He gave the 
kingdom into His hands. I want Brother Willis to answer these arguments. 
The promise is "The Father loveth the Son and hath given a 1 things into 
His hand." The church, the kingdom is one of the things; therefore He 
gave Him the kingdom. "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath com- 
mitted all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honor the Son, even 
as they honor the Father. John 5:22. The Father judgeth no man, but He 
hath committed (the past tense again) hath committed all judgment unto 
the Son. When did he do it? Is He going to do it when He gets into 
heaven? No. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I come 
to answer the gentleman's speech. I am in the negative of this proposition 
and I don't have to prove anything. He has to prove some things. Some 
things he cannot prove, but he has to make an attempt. 

There was no dispute about my terms in my proposition. I defined them. 
Have you defined the term General Baptist? This audience knows he hasn't 
done it. I called on him to do it before. Have you defined the term church ? 
You know you have not done it. Why "don't you tell the people what you 
mean by the use of the term churches? Have you defined the New Testa- 
ment? You know what debating is; now get down to business. I know 
where you belong and I know where I belong. 

A deed to the Christian church — what does that have to do with this 
discussion? Grant that the property is deeded to the Christian church, that 
has nothing to do with it, and why did you want to drag these things into 
it? To fill up time. You are weaving a carpet with any old fillings you 
can get to put in it. Over in Ohio county at Antioch (you have preached 
there, no doubt) I held a discussion there. You know that property is 
deeded jointly to the Church of Christ and the General Baptist church. Does 

108 



"that cut any figure with respect to the organization established there*? 
You know it doesn't. 

"Haven't got the gall to tackle my argument." What do you mean by 
'"gall?" Define that term. Isa. 28:16. The stone was Christ. Who called 
that in question? That is, the chief corner stone is Christ; but you rem em* 
ber the foundation is composed of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
nimself being the chief corner stone. Christ wasn't all of it. He was only 
a part, the chief corner stone of that foundation. You remember the 
apostles were the twelve pillars in that building. That isn't in dispute as 
to whether or not Christ was the chief corner stone. Where was the f ounda- 
tion laid£ The prophet says in Zion. Is Zion Jerusalem? Come on and 
answer this question. Elder. Christ came as King. Zech. 9:9. That is not 
questioned. That is not in debate. He was born King. He was questioned 
once and they said to Him, "Art Thou King of the Jews? He said, I was 
l)orn king. Was He King of Kings and Lord of Lords while on earth? 
Answer that; come to time. Answer this if you dare. He was Born King but 
He wasn't King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He wasn't the great High 
Priest. Heb. 8:4. Paul says plainly He should not be. 

Christ riding into Jerusalem on the colt, the foal of an ass. Therefore, 
the General Baptist church is identical in origin, name, doctrine and practice 
with the churches of the New Testament. Christ came as a King. Zech. 
9:9. Was He a King then? Yes. I don't have to answer questions* He has 
no right to question me. I am in the negative. 

(EldeT Laslie.) What did you do with it in your own proposition? 

(Brother Willis.) I will answer that. Yes, Christ was King. He Was 
born King, but not King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He became King oi 
Kings and Lord of Lords when He entered heaven, by His own blood. That 
is our great High Priest. Zech. 6:12-13. He quotes that to prove Christ 
was priest on His throne. Not on the earth, but priest on His throne. 1 
believe that. Psa. 2:6; Isa. 2:31; Psa. 37:17; Jer. 33:5-6. He reads that to 
prove that Christ was King on earth. I believe He was King On the earth. 
Matt. 2:2. The wise men came to worship Him. Is that the way you are 
worshiping Him today? Was the law of worship established there? If so, 
what was it? That is not in question. The wise men came to worship Him; 
therefore, the General Paptist church is identical in origin, name, doctrine 
and practice. Isa. 9:6-7; the government established on the throne. I believe 
that He began to rule and reign on the throne. All power delivered unto 
Him. He is our Mediator, our Law-Giver, and hence He is ruling and reign- 
ing supremely and the New Testament is the law. Away with your little 
yellow-back book. He didn't say anything about it. He didn't call in ques- 
tion the charge I made that he was one of the twelve apostles of the General 
Baptist church. He didn't call that in question. The Elder Absalom PearcC 
died before they gave in the report, though it seems to me God would have 
preserved his life in such an important matter in establishing such a 
foundation. 

109 



God had nothing to do with it. That is human wisdom. "Lord, remem- 
ber me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom." He wasn't in the kingdom 
then, was he, Elder? Is this the General Baptist church you are taking 
about? You are arguing the kingdom was synonymous of the church. That 
has reference to the General Baptist church. Therefore, He was a king. 
That was his final conclusion. Nobody is calling this in question at all. 
What did he have to say about his church in his last speech? What did 
he have to say about the General Baptist church. You General Baptists, did 
he read from the New Testament, or from the Old, either, and I have given 
him all the latitude he wants — did he read anything about the General Bap- 
tist church? No, and he cannot, and he won't until the day of his death. 
That is why he has been dodging and failing to answer propositions like this. 
He knows his proposition cannot be proven. What did I do on yesterday? 
Did I read to you from the book of God? The report will show. Rom. 16:16. 
Elder, I am going to question you a little bit. Mr. Reporter, I want you to 
take these questions. You can answer them. You piled the questions on 
me in my last speech. Do you call that dealing justly in debate? I am not 
going to do that. I will give you a chance. 

1. Give the exact date the General Baptist church was established on 
the earth. 

2. Who established it? 

3. Is the name General Baptist church in the Bible? 

4. Name the blessings on the inside that cannot be had on the outside. 

5. Are all the members of Christ's body members of the General Bap- 
tist church? 

6. Do all of God's children belong to Christ's body, which is the New 
Testament church? 

7. Is the General Baptist church essential to the saving of the soul? 

8. Is the General Baptist church Christ's bride? 

9. Does your wife wear your name, and why? 

10. Can a man be a General Baptist preacher who is not a member of 
the church? 

11. Was John a General Baptist preacher? 

12. Is a Baptist one who baptizes? 

13. Was Christ a Baptist? 

14 Can a man be a member of the Church of Christ witliout being a 
Baptist? 

16. What makes a Christian? 

17. What makes him a Baptist? 

18. Will the gospel save a man? 

19. Does it take more than the gospel to make a General Baptist? 

20. Name one essential thing that separates you from other Christians. 
Handle them carefully, Elder, they will blow you up. He got mixed 

up in Greek. I haven't been wandering around in a circuitous route. You 
talk plain. The folks don't understand your English. I can read Greek. 

110 



He got so mixed up on the word "establish" and the word "enlarge." He 
said I denied that argument in Matt. 16:18 meant to establish. That is one 
of the definitions I gave of the word. I did deny that it meant to enlarge, 
but when he went to the Greek lexicon he failed to find it. Here is what 
we find (giving the Greek definition). That established my principal sup- 
port in the establishment of my church. Matt. 16:18. Just like I quoted; 
it didn't say anything about enlarging. Here are the exact words. He says 
it doesn't mean to establish. Here is the Grub-Ax. We are going to grub 
him up again tomorrow. He brought this Grub-Ax to this debate to his own 
sorrow. Listen: "Remarks, by Elder Laslie." He is trying to grub up 
people he calls Campbellites. We will read, "And I say unto thee, thou art 
Peter; on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it. Matt. 16:18." "To build means in this passage to con- 
struct, to set up, to establish, to organize." That is what Laslie said in 
his Grub-Ax. 

(Elder Laslie.) I say it yet. 

(Brother WilHs.) He has gone back on his word "enlarge." Why didn't 
you put that in here, Elder? 

(Elder Laslie.) I didn't want to. 

(Brother Willis.) I have got you up a gum stump, Elder. I am glad 
that you can laugh. Back to the yellow-back book. 

(Elder Laslie.) That is a good thing, sir. 

(Brother Willis.) He says it is a good thing. I think it is a bad thing, 
and with the Bible standing opposed to human systems and human creeds 
of every state, in dividing the people of God and sub-dividing them — I will 
show you in this creed where they have refuted some of the things. That 
shows they are bad things; continually revising them, and this statement 
on the face of that they are bad, when they are continually revising them. 
You dare not undertake to revise the word of the living God in the New 
Testament. It is an infallible rule of faith and practice and it will produce 
righteousness. Creeds are imperfect, simply because their authors are 
imperfect. Therefore, their productions are imperfect. He repeated two 
or three times when I was calling attention to the elders in the Church of 
Christ, he says "We have elders in our church." I denied it and I deny 
it now, and let him prove it. I challenge you to prove, Elder, that you have 
elders in the General Baptist church. 

(Elder Laslie.) What do you call me Elder for? 

(Brother Willis.) Because you call yourself that. There is a difference 
between elder and elders. One is plural and the other singular. I am teach- 
ing you grammar a little bit. You would have the people to believe that I 
couldn't parse the simplest sentence in English grammar. I remember you 
made one statement yesterday that a man of my ability wouldn't do so and 
so. Laslie meets Laslie in the road. Let us see about it. Page 42 of this 
little creed, "Doctrines and Usages of General Baptists," of which T. A. H. 
Laslie is one of the apostles under the building and foundation. 

Ill 



'"The officers of the church are:' First, a moderator; second", a cleric; 
third, a treasurer; fourth, a pastor." I have read in the New Testament 
where they had pastors, but not where they have pastor in the church. They 
had pastors, elders and bishops in the church, and they had a plurality of 
elders, and the General Baptist church had a plurality of elders and now we 
will have you prove it. "Fifth, deacons; sixth, such eonimittees as the 
church shall determine." There you are. There are the officers in the 
General Baptist church, and he said yesterday other churches have elders: 
and deacons. I deny it now and you prove it. The laboring oar is in your 
hands today. Whenever he reads from the New Testament or points out 
the book, chapter and verse the name General Baptist church or churches^ 
his proposition I join. Now come on, sir, come to judgment. Read it out 
of the New Testament. Acknowledge to these people that you are wrong, 
radically wrong and dangerously wrong. It isn't there. It is like the* 
Dutchman's flea; he ain't dar, Elder. No, she isn't dar. Notice some of 
the doctrine while I have got this in my hand. They say that baptism is a> 
church ordinance. Yes, an ordinance in the church. If I understand church 
ordinances there is a repetition in church ordinances. How many times do 
they baptze a fellow in the Baptist church? I deny it being a church or- 
dinance, sir. You prove it. The Baptists all are crossed up in that. Some 1 
say it is a door; others say it is a church ordinance. I deny it. Christ is? 
the door. "I am the way, the truth and the life." Baptism is the essential 
that will pas^s you into Christ, into the kingdom, into the body of Christ, 
6f which He is the head, ruling and reigning supremely. The Lord's iSupper 
is a church ordinance, I agree with him, but we will disagree with him with 
respect to its observance. He will argue it should be observed once every 
month or six months, or once a year, but I read in the New Testament where 
the disciples met once a week to commemorate on the Lord's death and 
partake of the bread, which represents His body, and the wine, that repre- 
sents His precious blood, oft the first day of every week. Now he may 
Challenge me to read that out of the book. I have the latest translation, the 
twentieth century. That uSes the term every first day. I will anticipate 
him on th£t. 

Feet-washing. What about feet-washing? Some say it is a church 
Ordinance and some say it isn't. They are mixed up on that. Talk about 
unity among the General Baptists. Now listen. Article 3, on page 46 r 
"Feet-w'ashifig: Some of our people accept this as equally an ordinance, 
others accept it as simply an observance to be perpetuated, and others do 
hot regard it as either." dwelling together in unity. Washing the feet 
of some and some opposing it. Some arguing that the church ordinance is 
to be and some it is not. You are one of the apostles, and I wonder if they 
Were inspired; if he Can prove to me that they were inspired and spoke as 
the Spirit gave them utterance, as the twelve men in Matthew, except Judas, 
in Acts 1:25, if he can prove to me that these twelve men were inspired as 
(he Spirit gave them utterance, as the twelve original, I will become a mem- 

112 



ber of the General Baptist church and I will accept the creed wholeheartedly. 
No, they were not inspired. I have noticed apostasy. What do they teach? 
One says I do not know. All I know about it is the creed. We believe that 
he that shall endureth to the end shall be saved. I believe that, because the 
New Testament teaches it. Then he believes according to this statement, 
it is possible to apostatize. It is possible for an individual to be eternally 
lost unless he repents and reforms his life. He that endures to the end, the 
same shall be saved. Matt. 10:22. Listen, I want you to mark this little 
note: "This article originally was: 'That the saints will finally persevere 
through grace to glory.' But in 1845 it was changed to the present form. 
Whatever else that action did or did not mean, it certainly was the voting 
down and out of the doctrine of 'Once in grace, always in grace,' or the 
certain final perseverance of the saints. That clearly was repudiated, and 
cannot since be called General Baptist doctrine." 

The point I want to get here before these people, you revised the creed. 
In 1845 you taught this doctrine, "Once in grace, always in grace." You 
taught that up to 1845 and then you revised that act. You know it is true. 
It is in your own book. Take hold of that and handle it. They could repeal 
legislation and make new laws. That is why I object to this creed and to 
this bundle of creeds. They are to show what these various sects are teach- 
ing and to show it is false. A man, in order to refute a false theory must 
understand it and, secondly, he must understand the word of God, and it is 
just as easy as falling off of a log. 

Another thing, while I have got this in my hand, page 39, article 13, I 
find "A monthly or business meeting is held in connection with preaching, 
on one Saturday in the month. The door of the church may be opened at 
any regular service, by the pastor, for the reception of members." That is 
all right for the Baptist church, but wrong for the Church of Christ. There 
is no living man has the power to open the door of the Church of Christ. 
You may open the doors of the Baptist church with the human head. You 
can continue to open the Baptist church if you want to, but have no right 
to open the doors of the Church of Christ. You dare not open the door 
against any man who is honest in his belief and in his convictions. The 
Lord adds to His church. It is your province to obey the gospel. It is the 
power of salvation to every one that believeth. Rom. 1:16. You open the 
doors of r the church; they swing the old door on its hinges and pass individuals 
into, /that institution by a human head and to be governed by a human creed. 
That,is r not all. They vote on the acceptance of members, as to whether 
they shall receive them or not. They relate what we are pleased to call a 
Christian experience. Do you find that in the book of God? 

Article 8. "The reception of members should be decided by a unanimous 
vote in order to receive members in a General Baptist church." 



(Elder Laslie.) • Brothers and Moderators and Respected Audience; I 
am before you again for the purpose (after getting a drink) of pursuing 

113 



ftiy argument oh this proposition, 1 had a discussion with J. J. Foirtef a% 
Cay once. He was a very jolly fellow and he appeared before his audience? 
with a smile and a joke, aihd finally' fee remarked, he says, "Inhere is one* 
thing I am go:ng to have out of this dehate affd that is a tittle hit of fuH'' 
A little futt sdmetimes' keeps us lively and the time 3 comes when* we have' 
to go throtfgh this afid 1 wafit to get all the fun I can out of it. Sd noW 
the futt Begins. 

I want to ealf your attention; friends, to a few things* that were stated, 
and out very few. The fact is that Brother Willis is fighting a man of 
straw; he is putting up things he thinks' Laslie is goitfg to say. ffe had 
better wait until Laslie says them. It is tim'e whenever 1 have made them 
for hirft td ahsWer argument I hdve niade. It is Brother Willis' duty to* 
follow me ill my argument, The taw's of discussion c6mfcel him to do that 
'there is such a thing as breaking the laws of discussion. The rules of dehate 
say that all arguments shall he fairly and candidly answered. Now then, 
we are going to leave it to this respected audience whether Brother Willis 
answered my argument, or whether" he fought ihe^ little yefroW-back hoot'. 

I had hot said ariythirig about our practices; that cOmeS later. I have 
not sa'd anything about the name of the church; that comes later. I said 
the first thirig I proposed to do Was" to establish the church. The rfetft thing* 
f propose td d6 is id p'lade the doctrines of the chureh hefdre the people/ 
The next thing is to name the church. The next thing I propose to do is 
to discuss the practices of the dhurch. Theri t said 1 would hold this churcTt 
up before the audience and the ahdierice wduld See whether it is a General 
Baptist church or hot. 

Now, iri defining propositions, Brother Willis knows the spirit of the 
rules of discussion, and ahout all termS that have a doubtful meaning. We 
know the teachings" of the gentleman's church so far as that is concerned. 
There are Sohie things we give the people tke right of common Sense to 
know, and we suppose that the people have cdmmdh SenSe and I am not 
going to cavil over that. By the terfti church f hiean ecclesiastical hody 
of believers over whom the word of God is preached and the ordinances 
administered. I mean by the General Baptist ehureh the people that ohserve 
an order. He knew that as well as 1 did. By 1 the terfti New" Testamerit, hy 
defining New Testament — what does the term New* Testament meafi — con- 
sisting of the hooks of tltie Old and the New Testairient, mean Divinely in- 
spired and by the authority of the tMvinity itself. Brother Willis knew" 
there was nothing ambiguous ahout the definition so fai* aS that is <*on<?erned. 

I want to notice some things in passing", and they are Very few, before 
taking up my argument, t understand his argument with regard to the 
Bible, the Word of God. Me told us he waS going to read from the revision 
6f the twentieth century, and hoasted ahout the Baptist revision, and here 
we have before us the American revision. I wonder if that man doesn't 
know that there Was a bunch of nien who took the old Ancient manuscripts 
&hd decided What the Word of God is. Don't you know that the sixty-six! 

114 



Woks 'oi the Bihie were accepted as divine Iby man? Dont you know that^ 
Certainly he knows that if he knows anything of Bible history, he knows 
that these manuscripts were examined by men and men pronounced on them 
as to whether or not they were divinely inspired, and you all know we have 
hooks of the Old Testament and New Testament called Apocryphal books 
that were rejected, and yet he tells you that we do not revise and there are 
perhaps half a dtxzen revisions lying right here. Philip's confession is left 
out of the Bihle and you know it; and yet he says we do not revise. So 
much for that. 

He says haptism is not a church ordinance. Why didn't you tell us that 
•on the doctrines of your church? I say it is, and I will prove it. He says 
the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. You do not put the doctrines in 
your church. You leave your church without a single doctrine in it. You 
have got no church. Then he took up that little yellow hook as he called it. 
I want you to listen here just a little hit. I will give Brother Willis this 
to chew on, which isn*t in the argument; but it is Brother Willis' proposition 
and statement: "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas. who was 
surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, 
which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast 
chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which 
Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they 
gave forth their lots'; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered 
with the eleven apostles." You will find that in the Acts of the Apostles, 
first chapter and along about the last verse. They cast lots to determine 
who was to take the place of the twelfth apostle. But that has nothing to do 
with the establishment of the church at aU and Brother Willis knows it. 

(Brother Willis.) Are you trying to prove the authority for being in 
the churches? 

(Elder Laslie.) No, sir; but I am asking you if that is the way you do 
husiness in your church. I am giving you that to chew on. I said that I 
would attend to that watter when the time came. You brought it up pre- 
maturely. Stick to your argument and you won't get into trouble. 

He brought up the proposition on the final perseverance of the saints* 
Did you hear him mention that? The time will come and we will talk about 
that. I am going to ask Brother Willis this question: Can you prove that 
the saints w'll not persevere to the end? Can you prove that? He found 
fault in the old statement that was first stated that the saints will finally 
persevere until the end and be saved. I ask him again, can you prove that 
they won't persevere to the end and be saved? The doctrines of our people 
are the same then as today, but we thought it better to place it in Bible 
language so there would be no misunderstanding; and it says he that en- 
dureth to the end shall be saved. If Brother Willis disputes that it devolves 
on him to show that they won't persevere to the end and be saved. That 
is all I propose to pay any attention to, simply from the fact he hasn't any 
line of argument* That comes up tomorrow. Not only that, there is some 

115 



other stuff he used that I shall not pay any attention to at all, by which he 
was trying in every way possible to keep me consuming time so as not to 
get my argument in — all of this bombast about what he is going to do. My 
friend, let me tell you, it makes no difference who you have debated with; 
it makes no difference how much you know, the people are wanting to know 
what you are going to do now. It isn't your past record before the people, 
but it is what Willis is going to do now. Is he debating with Laslie, or is 
he feeding the people on hash, re-hash, cold hash and hash again. Nuw 
these people are not fools and simpletons, and in all of your combustion and 
bombast about Greek and language it goes before this people for what it is 
worth. Now that dollar is still in question. You said you can read Greek. 
I will give you one dollar if you will take that last passage in Acts and read 
it before this people. You said you can read Greek; I don't believe it. You 
can't pronounce it right; you can't give the Greek articles to save your im- 
mortal soul. If you will stand up here and read the Greek articles I will 
give you one dollar. You are going to prove you can read Greek, or you 
are going to stand before this people wholly ignorant and uneducated in 
Greek. I will give you five dollars; I will give you ten dollars. You do not 
know Greek, and you know it. Now to the argument. These things are not 
in the debate at all. They are not in the discussion; but when he came up 
here he introduced the Greek in his first speech atd took up the words "eis" 
and "ecclesia" and introduced them. I was to follow him wherever he went. 
Now, when it comes to a showdown in the Greek, there is where he stands. 
He had to take backwater on it. 

Now to the argument. When I closed my argument, if I remember 
rightly, I closed on Matt. 28:18. "All power is given unto me in heaven and 
in earth." But I said kingly power. Therefore, is all power given upto me 
in heaven and in earth. Kingly power is one of the "all powers." Therefore, 
kingly power was given to Christ while He was on earth. Matt. 28:18. He 
was a King. "All things are delivered unto me t)f my father." Luke 10:22; 
but I said the kingdom, so I mean all things. Therefore, it was delivered 
unto Christ and He was King on earth. Luke 10:22. What do we find in 
that? We find first, the stone was Christ; admitted. The pillars of the 
church; admitted. He was born a king; admitted; He was king; admitted. 
Therefore, He was king; admitted. The doctrine of apostasy as the -General 
Baptists teach; it is admitted. He says I believe in that. We are agreed 
on that. There are six admissions. Of the six the first five cover the 
argument I made, and he admitted every one of them. It was Bible and 
argument that he could not answer, and when he admitted every one of them 
he set up a straw man and tried to knock him down. I am going to keep 
count of these admissions, and he won't take them back, either. 

In the next place, "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things 
into His hands, and that He was come of God." John 13:3. The kingdom 
was one of the "all things." Therefore, God gave the kingdom into His 
hands. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, 

116 



*the7i>wouid my servants fight, Chat' I should not be delivered to the Jews: 
lout now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art 
thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king. To this end 
"was I born," There He declares He is king; the Bible says He was king. 
-John 18:36-37. Brother Willis says He was king; Laslie says He was king. 
Therefore it must be true, because the Bible says it is true. But if He was 
king He was Icing over a kingdom. Therefore, a kingdom existed. Christ 
~was a priest on the earth. Here is where Brother Wi.lis and I differ, and 
"here is where he must answer the argument. He has admitted everything 
up to this. 'The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest 
forever after the order of Melchizedek." Psa. 110:2. Brother Willis intro- 
duced that passage. "Thou art a priest" (in the present tense). "The Lord 
liath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever aft?r the order 
-of Melchizedek." In the present tense. When did the priesthood of Melchi- 
zedek begin? "And he bare the sins of many, and made intercession for the 
transgressors." Isa. 53:12. When did the priesthood of Melchizedek beg*n? 
It was without beginning of days and it was without end. He was born a 
Icing and a priest; a priest when he was born and a king when he was born, 
and will be a king and priest forevermore. King on earth, priest on earth; 
Idng in heaven, priest in heaven, and priest in heaven forevermore. As a 
^priest he bore the sins of many. No one but the high priest had authority 
to bear the sins of the people as a priest. He entered the holy of holies and 
made intercession for the people. Christ Jesus bore the sins of the people. 
He bore our sins; He bore the sins of many and made intercession for the 
transgressors. "He shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of 
peace shall be between them both." Zech. 6:13. It does not mean there that 
His priesthoodshall begin but shall continue. He shall be a priest on Bis 
throne. He is a priest in heaven today; He was a priest on earth while 
here, and He is in heaven today. He was king on earth while here and His 
ikingship had no beginning and had no ending; His priesthood had no begin- 
ning and had no end. "I have prayed thee that thy faith fail not." Luke 
'22:32. As a priest He was intercessor. He was praying that thy faith fail 
riot. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34. 
"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, 
that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to 
God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb. 2:17. "In all 
things it behoved him to be like unto his brethren." Born in the" flesh; after 
the manner of sinful flesh, yet without sin, "that he might be a merciful 
and faithful high priest," what for? "in things pertaining to God\" what 
for? "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb. 2:17. No 
one had authority to do that only the priest. Christ was a priest. So then 
we have a great high priest that has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son 
of God. "Let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest 
which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all 
points tempted like as We are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:14-15. Notice this, 

117 



"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the 
heavens," that priest passed into the heavens, He is still a high priest, 
"Jesus the Son of God." Jesus in apposition with the high priest. "Let 
us hold fast our profession, or we have not an high priest which cannot be 
touched with the feeling of our infirmities." He was in all things, this 
high priest "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 
Tempted and made intercession for the people. Offered Himself a sacrifice 
for the sins of the people, and yet we hear it said that He was not a priest 
on earth. Again, "The Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ 
Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was 
faithful in all his house." Heb. 3:1-2. Now if Moses was appointed to be 
faithful to fulfill the duties that he did in his house, then Christ Jesus was 
appointed to do the duties of His house. He was a priest. "But he that 
said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. As he saith 
also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchi- 
zedek." Called Him high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Heb. 5:5-6-10. 
I do not believe Brother Willis will dispute this argument. Called and set 
apart after the order of Melchizedek. This is the doctrine of the General 
Baptist church, the doctrine of the Church of Christ and of the family of 
God. It is a doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, and it is Bible doctrine. 
Do you believe it? 

(Brother Willis.) I don't believe your construction. 

(Elder Laslie.) Did you ever hear of a doctrine without construction? 
Why don't you come out like a man and say I don't believe the doctrine. 
"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning 
of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the iSon of God; abideth a priest 
continually." Who was he fashioned after? "Without father, without 
mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; 
but made like unto the Son of God;" abideth now, not until He gets into the 
other world, but "abideth a priest continually." If it meant that His priest- 
hood began in the other world, why didn't he say ? He had an end of life and 
was made priest when He entered heaven. Heb. 7:3-26. "Who needeth not 
daily ,as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and 
then for the people's 1 ; for this he did once, when he offered up himself." No 
one had a right to offer sacrifices but a priest, but "this he did once, when 
he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have 
infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the 
Son, who is consecrated forevermore." Heb. 7:27. Therefore, He was a 
priest here on earth. "We have such an high priest, who is set on the right 
hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minsiter of the sanc- 
tuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched ,and not man." 
Heb. 8:1-2. "But Christ being come an high priest of all good things to 
come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that 
is to say, not of this building: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but 
by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained 

118 



eternal redemption for us." How did He do it? By the sacrifice of Him- 
self. "And for this cause He is the mediator of the New Testament, that 
means of death, for the redemption Of the transgressions that were under 
the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of 
eternal inheritance." Heb. 0:11-12-15. Every priest standeth daily minis- 
tering, and oftentimes the same sacrifice which can never take away sin; 
but this man after He was offered in sacrifice for sins, forever sat down 
on the right hand of God. He was a priest. 

Now, before the mission of John the Baptist, which was to prepare a 
people for the Lord — before I take that up I want to notice these questions 
that Brother Willis asked a moment ago. Don't be uneasy about these 
questions; we Will answer them in our next speech. Here is an argument 
that I wanted to get in. The mission of John the Baptist was to prepare a 
people for the Lord. "The voice of one in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way 
of the Lord, make his paths straight." Brother Willis asked was John the 
Baptist a General Baptist? If he was on earth today preaching the same 
doctrine and passing through the same experience he was passing through 
he would be a General Baptist. The General Baptists teach the doctrine 
that John the Baptist taught. We teach the doctrine of the Bible. John 
the Baptist's mission was a General Baptist mission and, therefore, just 
exactly as he taught it. He taught what it was for, and so do we. 



Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I rise 
to respond to the gentleman's speech. I am in the negative today and I 
don't have to affirm anything today. He is in the affirmative. The laboring 
oar is in his hands. 

First, he says "He is fighting a man of straw." The Church of Christ 
is called a new man. Eph. 2:15. Does that little yellow book, that General 
Baptist book, "Usages and Practices of the Baptist Church," does that make 
a man of straw, or does it make the General Baptist church? I referred to 
your little creed. If it makes a man a straw man let it do it. It makes 
you General Baptists. 

He said his first duty was to establish the church. That is what we; 
Want you to do. Did he say anything about this church in this speech? 
bid he tell you anything about the General Baptist church, where they were 
established? Ho is discussing the origin of the General Baptist churches. 
Did he tell you where they began ? If he don't find it in the Book of God I 
Will find it on the outside. Talking about a king and a priest. Get down 
to business. You are here to point out the origin of the General Baptist 
churches and you are trying to make an effort. He finally defined the term 
"church." He had to be dragged into things. He says the people understand 
that. That isn't the point. The first rule that governs us says it is your 
duty to clearly define the terms of this proposition that there will be no 
misunderstanding, and I mean for you to obey that rule. I had to drag 
you to it. I had no definition to the terms he gave of church and New 

119 



Testament, f do not object to 5/ our definition. Listen to what He says". He? 
talks about defining the doubtful terms. Why give these terms that are 1 
doubtful terms ? Is the term "general" doubtful ? Is the term "Baptist"' 
a doubtful term? Is the term "church" a doubtful term? Is the term "New 
Testament" a doubtful term? There are two of those terms you haven't 
defined yet; the term "general" and the term "Baptist." He says you re- 
vised the work of God. Talk about revision, I said you had no authority to- 
revise the work of God like you are revising your creed; add to it and take 
from it. That is what you are doing with your creed and I read It to you. 
¥ou have no right to handle the Word of God in that manner. He says; 
Philip^s confession Was left out. Who left it out. You can take Philip's' 
confession out of Acts 8 and then I can establish beyond a doubt that it is 
right for every individual who obeys the gospel of Jesus Christ to make a 
confession of the mouth that Jesus is Christ and the Son of God. 

The Lord's Supper in the church. Yes, it is in the Church of Christ, but 
not in the Baptist church. He never put any supper in a human institution? 
you prove that he put the Supper in the Baptist church. It is up to you. 
The laboring oar is in your hand, and you refer to Luke 22 where the Lord' 
said his table is in His Kingdom. iNow if you affirm that kingdom there in 
Luke 22 is a General Baptist church you prove, sir, that Christ put His table 
in the General Baptist church. I deny it. He says "You have got no 
church." I don't claim to have any church. If I had a church I would have 
it in the condition the General Baptist church is in. Matt. 16:18. Upon this 
rock Twill build my church; and I proved to you yesterday and day before 
that the divine institution which we find in our proposition, the churches of 
Christ are made known in the New Testament. I gave you the chapter. 
Book and verse. That is something you are not going to do, because it 
can't oe- done and I Warn yoU in" time. The church belongs to Christ and I 
am a member of that Divine institution we read of in the New Testament. I 
belong to that instead of it belonging to me. 

Acts 1:25; he wants a little tussle over Matthias. What did you refer* 
to this for, Elder? Did you refer to this to prove that it is right to vote 
people into the church? Let us See'. I will read a little bit. Acts 1:25. 
"That he may take" part in tne ministry and apostleship, from which Judas 
by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave 
forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with 
the eleven apostles/': I asked him if he meant to use that as truth, that it is 
right to vote people into the church. I don't know whether I get him or 
not. I think that is his purpose, but he is a little afraid of it. I will teach 
you a little bit, a few things;' you don't know the difference between casting 
and voting. Listen. Prov. 16:33. "The lot is east into the lap; but the 
whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." In casting lots the whole disposing 
is of the Lord, and in voting the whole disposing is not of the Lord but of 
the people. They tell me that you can't teach an old fe.low new tricks, but I 
will; teach- you a f eW tricks before we get through with this thing. . That is \ 

120 



one trick, if you want to take hold of it. The people are wanting to know 
what he is going to do. The people are wanting to know what you are 
going to do. They know what I am going to do. They are not uneasy 
about me. I am following and you are leading. They want to know what 
you are going to do, and so do I. If you can prove your proposition, get 
abut it. Find where General Baptist churches are in the New Testament. 
Find it in the New Testament and I will give you all the latitude you want. 
It isn't there. Your proposition says it is identical in name, and you say 
identical means same. You admitted that. He must find the same name in 
the New Testament according to his acceptance of the definition of the term 
identical. 

You wanted to know if I read Greek. He wanted to give a grammatical 
analysis of Acts 2:38. I turned there to the Grub- Ax and got his analysis 
all right. Now he wants me to take up my time and read the Greek. I will 
read it in the proper time. He talks about his knowledge of Greek. You 
went to the wall on Matt. 16:18 and you know it, in the affirmation. He 
affirmed that it meant to enlarge. Can it be so? In Matt. 16:18 can it 
mean to enlarge? He went through Thayer's Greek Lexicon and failed to 
find it, and I read it and it means to establish and to build a house, and I 
introduced his Grub-Ax and it meant the same thing, with the addition to 
the word organize. I will attend to the term that I need to use in this 
proposition. Don't you be uneasy, Elder. I am not going to while away 
my time reading Greek when it doesn't amount to anything. 

We are having a pleasant time. This is as good fun as I want. Yes, 
he got caught in the Greek in Matt. 16:18, on "build." He turned that loose 
like it was hot. The pillars of the church; admitted. Do you see this 
chart, Elder? You couldn't put General Baptist church on a chart. I defy 
you do to it. You see that chart? There is a foundation, and the scrip- 
tural reference is laid in Zion, Jerusalem, and the twelve apostles 
represent the twelve pillars to that building, and he now says he ad- 
mits the pillars. He admits Christ as the chief corner stone. This 
puts the argument there before you and it has gone to record. It will 
be read after we are gone from this world. I said he was King. Yes, I 
admitted he was King. You took up most of your speech in trying to prove 
Christ was king; indeed you did. When I said Christ was king on the earth 
I said he wasn't King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and I still say it. He 
was born king, but He wasn't King of Kings and Lord of Lords. When was 
he seated upon throne in the beginning to rule and reign? What did you do 
with that? You absolutely did nothing. Christ, a priest on earth; he affirms 
that. Let me read Zech. 6:13, says He was a priest on the throne. Now 
the next word contradicts him. Suppose I read a little about the priesthood. 
We are going to have a tussle as to whether Christ was priest on earth. He 
didn't become the High Priest until He ascended to heaven and then He 
became our great High Priest, and not before then, and only one scripture 
need to be introduced. Preacher, all you introduced about this is Heb. 8:4, 

121 



and Paul says he wasn't a priest; Paul the apostle says he should not Bev 
Read it when you go home. Heb 8:4. "Thou art a priest forever after the 
order of Melchizedek." Psa. 110:4. Zech. says he should be a priest on his 
throne ', Zech. 6rl3. David sard the Lord's throne is in heaven. Psa. 11:4*. 
Paul said if he were on earth he should not be a priest. Heb. 8:4. Christ is 
High Priest of the Church of God. He wasn't priest on earth. He was 
made priest on His throne in Heaven. Now take hold of that, sir. I will 
be with you irf the sixth trial and not forsake you in the seventh. Jesus is 
mediator of the new covenant. Heb. 12:22-24; but wasn't made mediator; 
Heb. $:4-6. Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is ruling 
and reigning supremely in heaven; and He did not become King of Kings? 
and Lord of Lords until He ascended to His throne. Jesus Christ is our 
great High Priest, and He did not become our great High Priest until He 
was Seated on the throne, so says Zech. Jesus Christ was our mediator, but 
he did not become our mediator until in heaven, by His own blood. I believe 
1 Will give you a little more on the priesthood. Heb. 7:12; "For the priest- 
hood being Changed, there is made of necessity a change also in the law. He 
WaS unchanged; Heb. 7:24. "But this man, because he eontinueth ever, hath 
an unchangeable priesthood." Heb. 9:7; "But into the second went the h ; gb 
priest afone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for him- 
salf, and for the errors of the pec pie." Heb. 8r4; "For if he were on earth, 
he would riot be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts accord- 
ing to the law." Heb. 9:24; "For Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made With hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, 
now to appear in the presence of God for us." That is enough on the priest- 
hood. 

Now listen here, Elder, you are in the affirmative. If Christ was 
priest on earth when and how was He priest? Jot that down, sir. I met a 
gentleman once in discussion and he said Christ was made priest in baptism. 
Take that position if you dare. Tell us when and how He was made high 
priest if He was priest on earth He says I am not making an argument, 
and not following, You watch and see whether 1 don't follow him in his 
circuitous route of not. He can neither lead nor follow. We tried him two 
days and he Can't follow, and I say now he can't lead. He can't either 
lead of follow. Heb. 5:5-6-10. High priest. Yes, but when did He become 
such? When He entered the throne. Heb. 7:3-24-26; and there Paul is 
talking about the priesthood of Melchizedek, that he is abiding priest con- 
tinually. Heb. 7:17; Heb. 8:1-2. 

The last thng he Said was John the Baptist coming to prepare the people. 
I believe that. I believe he did not establish a kingdom. He had no 
authority to do so. He came to prepare a people for the reception of Christ, 
and he pointed out that He would come, and when He had already come. 
What did he do with the question? He Says "In the next speech I will 
answer that." He knows these things are loaded for him. He is putting it 
off as long as possible. John the Baptist will come in discussion when you 

122 



Sittswer these questions as to whether or not lie is a Baptist preacher and 
"whether or not he belonged to the Baptist church. Come on, Elder. We 
'will give you time, and we will wait with patience. L'sten. We are waiting 
"with patience for you to show the origin of the General Baptist Church, and 
it is up to you to point it out in the New Testament. I am patiently waiting 
for you, and you are sure to fail, because it can't be done; and then I will 
point you out to the Baptist Church out of the New Testament. I will 
find it on the outside. 

Now I will spend the remainder of my time on this foundation. This 
has gone to record. The church building, temple, house, kingdom. These 
terms are used synonymously. It is called a house, a building, because of its 
family feature; it is called a kingdom because of its governmental feature. 
I stated yesterday evening in my last speech that the government of the 
kingdom of Jesus Christ was absolutely a monarchial government, and he 
made no reply to it. Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and 
he is reigning and ruling in heaven. His subjects have no right to legislate; 
they have no right to add to or take from this Divine revelation, and you 
know the penalty if you read the last book of Revelation. Foundation; 
Christ, the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ Himself being the chief 
corner stone. Eph. 2:20. Where laid, in Zion. Zion in Jerusalem. 2nd 
Sam. 5:7. In Zion. "Behold" sayeth God (Isa. 28:16) "I lay in Zion for a 
foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; 
he that believeth shall not make haste." We are in Zion. He has been 
dodging that from the very first time I made the opening speech in this 
discussion to the present good hour. He dare not tell us whether or not 
'Zion in Isa. 28:16 is in Jerusalem, and he hasn't told us to this good hour. 
I am going to hold it before him and before these people who heard it, hold 
it over his head until the last speech is made in this debate. If he says that 
Zion in Isa. 28:16 is in Jerusalem then he agrees with me that Pentecost is 
the beginning, Because the foundation was laid in Zion. If Zion was in 
Jerusalem here is the beginning. If he says Zion is not in Jerusalem then 
he is forced to tell us what Zion is. Something else I am going to hold over 
his head, and that is that the General Baprst church of his faith is not in 
the Book of God. I challenge you, Elder; and that is my chief reason why I 
am not a member of it. I cannot find any traces of it in the Word of God. 
Brother Gary says he can. Let him try his hand after Laslie is through. 
"Life and death is before us, friends. Choose ye this day whom ye shall 
serve. If God be God, serve Him; if Baal, serve him. We want to know 
the truth and the whole truth, and nothing but "the truth, so help us God. 
The truth will make us free, says Jesus. The truth will sanctify us. Read 
that memorable prayer of the Savior in the 17th chapter of John. God help 
ns to search the Word of God carefully and prayerfully for the truth, and 
may He help us to obey it when we find it. 

The Elder said yesterday evening I was a good exhorter. I am good for 
something, Elder. The pillars, he says I admitted that. You see this on 

123 



the chart, don't you? Read Gal. 2:9, where Paul says they are pillars. 
Read Rev. 21:14 and there John says they are twelve of the names incorpo- 
rated in twelve foundations in that heavenly city. And listen, they are 
seated on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matt. 19:28. The 
chief corner stone was tried. In His mock trial and in His temptation and 
in His persecution and in His test before Satan in Matt. 4, and finally in 
His death, burial and His resurrection from the time He came forth a vic- 
torious conquerer. The chief corner stone is tested and ready to be laid in 
Zion where it ought to be laid, in Jerusalem. The twelve pillars were tried. 
Read Matt. 10. Here we have an account of where Christ chose twelve 
whom he named as disciples. What did the Elder say about being disciples 
in the General Baptist church? Read Matt. 10. Here we have a record 
where Christ chose twelve men whom he named apostles. One of these 
pillars was Judas. He was a bad pillar; he crumbled. He fell from that 
high state into the low state of degredation and shame. He went to his 
own place, and then Matthias, to which reference was made in the gentle- 
man's speech, was chosen, a second pillar, who was a witness, beginning 
from the baptism of Christ to His ascension. It took that to fit a man for 
the apostleship. He was a sound pillar, and then he was placed in Judas' 
place and so we have twelve sound pillars, tried, tested thoroughly, and now 
they are ready to lay in Zion, Jerusalem, and so the foundation is laid in 
Jerusalem. And here the New Testament, the new living way, goes into 
effect. The perfect law of liberty goes forth, and then we find men and 
women being pierced to the hearts with the burning words of the new 
covenant and crying men and brethren, what are we to do? They are told 
plainly what to do by the ambassadors of the Lord. They bowed in humble 
submission to Divine authority; they have their glorious induction into the 
church of the kingdom of Jesus Christ where they claim all the promises 
and privileges guaranteed to the great head of the church. Paul tells us we 
obeyed the law of the Spirit of life. Rom. 8:1-2. And he tells us again in 
Rom. 6:17-18. "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but 
ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered 
you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteous- 
ness." When were we made free from sin? When we obeyed that form of 
doctrine or teaching which was delivered you. Not before it; when you 
obeyed that form of teaching. According to the great commission carried 
put by Mark 16, last chapter, 16-16. "Preach the gospel to every creature. 
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned." Salvation follows baptism in the great commission. 
Laslie says in his Grub- Ax we are baptized "e:s" into the remission of sins, 
the strongest term that can possibly be used, and in order to cross himself 
he says that that order was established in Acts 2, that the Pentecostians 
believed, were saved and were baptized. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brethren and Moderators and Friends: I am before 

124 



you to continue my argument on the proposition. This closes my part of 
J the work for the day and I will ta.k this thirty minutes as quick as I can, 
:and then we will leave it with you. 

There are some few things that Brother Willis introduced that sounded 
a little Dig to me somehow or other. Why a man will make assertions and 
not offer any answer or proof whatever, I cannot say. I want to know, and 
T want Brother Willis to tell us, when Jesus Christ ever ceased to be superior 
$is a king or as a priest, or as a Lord over all things. He says he wasn't 
King of Kings and Lord of Lords until He ascended to heaven. Then some 
time or other Jesus Christ as the Son of God had lost His power, had lost 
His royalty, had lost His kingship and had no position, when the Bible 
"plainly tells us that His priesthood was without beginning and without end. 
That was an assertion without a scintilla of proof, and I call on h'm to 
prove it. Now then let use see. In the next place, whenever a man has 
the audacity to stand up and say that Jesus Christ was not King over all 
things until He suffered and died, and that it took His suffering and death 
and burial and resurrection to make Him Lord of all, I am astonished. The 
Christ that I serve is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. 
That is the Christ that I serve. Whether Brother Willis serves that kind of 
Christ or not, the Christ that I serve is the Christ that was the same yester- 
day, today and forever. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
'with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with 
^God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything 
made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of mem 
And the light shineth in darkness"; and the darkness comprehended it not. 
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came 
for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might 
believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 
That was the true Light, which lighteth man that cometh into the world. 
He was in he world, and the world was made by him, and the World knew 
him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as 
many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, 
■even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of 
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, out of God. And the Word 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory 
as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.' 1 ' Yet He 
was not King of Kings and Lord of Lords until He ascended to heaven. 
Now you talce it, my beloved congregation, at just what it is worth. I will 
not accept a statement or assertion here that it takes the glory and king- 
ship away from the Christ that I serve, and I demand, Brother Willis, as 
one of the most solemn duties of your life, to show to this people when Jesus 
Christ ever did cease to be king over all things; where He ever did cease to 
he King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Heb. '8:4. 

Then I will take up my argument. "For if he were on earth, he should 
not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to 

125 



the law: Who serve unto the exampie and shadow of heavenly things, as 
Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: 
for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed 
to thee in the mount." Let us read the preceding verse. 'Wow of the things 
which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is 
set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens ; A minister 
of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not 
man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: where- 
fore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer:" Now 
understand, and had not offered. "Every high priest is ordained to offer 
gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have some- 
what also to offer. For if he were not on earth, he should not be a priest," 
Brother Willis, if he is the grammarian that he claims to be; if he is what 
he professed to be, he knows the meaning of an auxiliary verb. He knows 
also that this is in the subjunctive mood. If Jesus Christ was on the earth 
at the time the apostle speaks, it would have condemned His claim that He 
was priest, but in that he acted as priest, offered himself for the sacrifice of 
the sins of men, passed into heaven, sat on the right hand of God the Father, 
this demonstrates he was priest in heaven and priest on earth, and after the 
order of Melchizedek, but if He was still on the earth that would prove that 
He was not a priest on the earth. It is conditional. Then we turn to Zech. 
6 and notice this a little bit. Begin with the 12th verse. "And speak unto 
him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts, say'ng, Behold the man whose 
name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build 
the temple of the Lord." Did he do it? First, "he shall build the temple of 
the Lord"; "and he shall bear the glory." Did he do it? "And shall sit 
and rule upon His throne." Did he do it? "And shall be a prest upon his 
thrond; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." He did it. 
He ruled on the earth as priest; He ruled on the earth as king, fulfilling the 
prophecy. Then He offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of men as a 
priest; died, rose again triumphant to heaven, demonstrating His power 
over death and the grave and ascended to heaven, and He continued His 
priesthood and continued it under the order of Melchizedek forever. The 
prophecy does not say that His rule shaU begin in heaven, but it directs us 
to that understanding that His rule shall continue to all eternity. 

Now I want to continue with regard to what he said about the name of 
the church. That name will come up later, understand, and with regard to 
those questions, I propose to write the answers to these questions. I do not 
propose to be misrepresented in my answers if I answer them orally. 
Brother Willis is not liable to remember all of them, so I am writing them. 

(Brother Willis.) I answered yours right off the reel. You ought to be 
fair, too. 

(Elder Laslie.) I will answer them if there is anything to them all 
right. We will pass now to another argument. In the next place I begin 
with John's ministry. He accepted it that he came to prepare a people for 

126 



the Lord. "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the 
way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for God." That was 
from Isa. 40:3. "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the 
way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his 
temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom he delight in: behold, he 
shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.'. Mai' 3:1. Brother Willis is going to 
accept the argument on this, that the mission of John was to prepare the 
way for the Lord, Isa., saying the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 
prepare ye the way of the Lord. Matt. 3:3, referring to the mission of 
John, his ministry in the world. How does it begin? "The beginning of 
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, 
"Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare the way 
before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way 
of the Lord, make his paths straight." Here is the beginning of the gospel 
of Jesus Christ according to Matt. 1:2-3; "the beginning of the gospel of 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets.. Behold, I 
send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare the way before 
thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the 
Lord, make his paths straight." There is the beginning of the gospel of 
Jesus Christ; now don't forget it. "And he shall go before him in the spirit 
and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and 
the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared 
for the Lord. Luke 1:17. There is the mission of John, and I am persuaded 
Brother Willis will accept it. 

The fifth statement is with John's ministry the gospel began, and the 
near approach to the kingdom. That is the statement I use, to mean by 
this the near transition to the kingdom. Now to Matt., 16th chapter. 
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The 
church has been under the law; the kingdom of God has been under the law 
and the prophets until now. John prepared a people for the Lord. "And 
after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth 
them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: 
and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 
And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 
Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be 
here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one 
for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud 
overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is 
my beloved !Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him," Matt. 17:1-2- 
3-4-5. Here is a statement I declare to be made by the Son of God Himself. 
I learn here there were three characters with Jesus on the Mount of Trans- 
figuration; three characters on the Mount of Transfiguration. We learn 
that Elias was there and Moses was there, the one representing the law, the 
other representing the prophets. I learn the people of God had been under 

127 



tfie law; that' they passed' from under the Abrahamic age and" went under 
the prophetic age and then under the law, and that the Lord gave the law to 
Moses on Mount Sinai, and that the transition from the prophetic age to the; 
law age we find the people of God ruling, and the people were governed by 
Moses under the law and they were represented by Elias undr the prophets. 
Now here is Jesus standing before them with Elias on one side and Moses om 
the other side; so that the glory of Jesus was made manifest there. They 
saw His glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 
That was on the Mount of Transfiguration; they were with the Son of God 
When this cloud overshadowed them and they heard the voice of the father 
saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."" 
Here is Jesus now. God speaks to this same people as much as to say, ye 
have heard the prophets and the law, and now, "This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." In Him is the fulness of all things. 
"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." So we? 
have the transition in the fulfillment of the words of the Master: Upon 
this foundation stone I will build my church; I will establish it on the rock 
Christ Jesus. "Hear ye Him." They are not under the law any further, or 
the prophets any further — a new order. Listen, and hear the words of the 
Son of the living God. There they heard when the transition came, in the* 
17th chapter of our Lord's Gospel by Matthew. Now let us see. The gospel 
was preached by Jesus Christ Himself, and He said unto them, "I must 
preach the kingdom of God to other cities also'; for therefore am I sent.'" 
Was that the gospel? If so, Jesus preached it. "Now after that John was; 
put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom 
Of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: 
repent ye and believe the gospel." Mark 1-14-14. That gospel began with 
John. Jesus Ohrist preached it according to Luke 1:14-15. He taught in 
the synagogues and healing every disease. Matt. 9:35. Therefore His king- 
ship, tCis power. He had power to raise the dead; to heal all manner of 
diseases, and said ho man taketh my life from me, but I will lay it down 
myself. "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of 
God is come unto you." So that kingdom, that people that were directed to 
hear Jesus Christ is called here the kingdom of God; and this brother says 
the kingdom of God is the church of Jesus Christ. So my text says "is come 
unto you." Matt. 12:28. "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, 
no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you." Luke 11:20. "Seek ye 
first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be 
added unto you." Matt. 6:33. 

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was given to these people. It 
belongs to the church. My brother says it is in the church. The supper 
Was given to the church. "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and 
blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them; and 
they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New 

128 



Testament, which is shed for many." The General Baptists preach the 
sacrament is in the church; Brother Willis says it is in the church. Here is 
where the church existed according to Brother Willis and accord'ng to 
Laslie, and according to the Bible; ail agreed on it. "And as they did eat, 
Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, 
Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given 
thanks, he gave it to them; and they all drank it. And he said unto them, 
This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many." Mark 
14:22-23-24. 

Then again, baptism is either in the church or out of it. It is to be 
perpetuated by the church or it is not. If baptism is not in the church 
then it is not the door into the church. If it is out of the church it isn't an 
ordinance of the church; the church has no authority over it whatever. 
Not at all. Now let us see. If it was observed it was observed in the law 
under the type of purification or washing. See Lev. 15:13; Lev. 17:15-16; 
Heb. 9:10. Then again, it was observed in baptismal administration, "And 
he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of re- 
pentance for the remission of sins." Luke 3:3. Here is a symbol 'c baptism 
under the ministration of John. Then again, this was before the transition 
of the church under the law. "And there went out unto him all the land of 
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river 
Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5. In Matthew, and in all of the 
evangelists that say anything about baptism in connection with the com- 
mission, I learn where baptism was placed in the church. Turn to the last 
chapter of Matthew and let us read it. "And Jesus came and spake unto 
them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Yet he 
was not 'King of Kings and Lord, of Lords. "Go ye therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the 
world." Here is baptism given to the disciples. Brother Willis says the 
sacrament of the Lord's Supper is in the church. I say it is. Brother 
Willis says the ordinance of baptism given to the same parties is not in the 
church. Here is the ordinance and commission given to the same people 
that received the same authority; that received the bread of the Lord's 
Supper and partook of it with the blessed Savior. Both of these ordinances 
are in the church and you cannot get out of it. 

I want to notice a little further. I have another argument. It is 
based on the death, burial and resurrection and ascension of Christ. "And I 
will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and 
her seed; and it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." 
Gen. 3:15. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet 
we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. He was wounded 
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of 
our peace was upon him; and with his stripes are we healed." Isa. 53:4- 

129 



5-6. This is the pf ophecy concerning the ministry of our Lord Jesus" Christ^ 
"To finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make a 
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to 
seal up the Vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy." Dan, 9:24. 
There is the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ prophesied; and Brother 
Willis says' tie Wag not King of Kings and Lord of Lords until He entered 
heaven. "I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit -wherein is no* 
water." Zech. 9rll. "There shall fee a fountain opened to the house of 
David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." 
£ech. 13:1. That is enough to prove the mission of Jesu& Christ in? prophecy 
6n earth. "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for 
Sin, condemned sin in the flesh."' Rom. 8:3. "For to this end Christ both 
died, and rose, and revived, that he might fee Lord feoth of the dead and 
living." Rom. 14:9. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth 
6n a' tree." Gal. 3:13. 

Therefore, I conclude from these arguments that Christ was born a 
king; He was born a priest; that He ruled on earth as ecclesiastical king 
over His people and was King of Kings and Lord of Lords from the begin- 
ning, having all power in heaven and in earth; that He suffered and died 
for the sins of men, and redeemed the world from the curse of the violated 
law, and today in continuation of His kingship and priesthood maketh in- 
tercession at the right hand of God for the sins of men and stands as our 
mediator before God and the angels. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen r I come 
to reply t6 the gentleman's speech. He Says I assert, in the absence of 
proof concerning Christ being King of Kings and Lord of Lords on the earth. 
I want to read a statement from Paul iri the 6th chapter of his letter to 
Timothy, from the 13th to the 16th verses : "I give thee charge in the 
Sight of God, whd quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who* 
before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; That thou keep this 
commandment without spot, unrebukafele, until the appearing of our Lord 
Jesus Christ 1 ; Which in big times he, shall Shew, who is the felessed and only 
Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; Who only hath immorality, 
dwelling in the light Which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath 
seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen." Now 
let David describe to you the entrance into the eternal kingdom where He 
sits at the right hand of God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, our great 
High Priest, in the 24th Psalm, beginning at the 7th verse I readr "Lift up 
your heads, ye gates; and fee y"e lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the 
King of glory Shall come in. Who i§ this King of glory? The Lord strong 
and mighty; the Lord mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, ye gates; 
even lift them Up, ye everlasting doorS; and the King of glory shall come in. 
Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory." 

130 



David represents His ascension into the eternal kingdom where He is seated 
on the right hand of God and there King of Kings and Lord of Lords, He 
did not become King of Kings and Lord of Lords until He was crowned. 
He wasn't crowned until He ascended into glory. Did Christ build a temple? 
Hoes He build a temple ? Yes, He built a temple. But the temple that He 
t>uilt wasn't the General Baptist church. The temple that the Lord builded, 
^and builded in Zion, Jerusalem, wasn't the General Baptist church and the 
General Baptist church is no part of the kingdom or church established in 
Jerusalem. John's ministry; Isa. 43; Matt. 3. He came to prepare a people 
if or the Lord. Yes, I believe that. I believe that as firmly as he does. 
Matt. 3:3; beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mark states that in 
plain words; Mark 1:2, the beginning of the gospel of Christ. The beginning 
of the gospel in preparation, Elder, and not in its facts, because they didn't 
exist. Now listen. John didn't declare the fundamental facts to any one 
that Jesus had died, and He had been buried and rose again for our justifi- 
cation, because those facts didn't exi'st. Jesus Christ preached the gospel 
before His death, and He did not declare to any one that he died and had 
heen buried and rose again in the 16th chapter of Matthew. He says, tell 
no man that I am the Christ; and they began to send out the good /news 
from Jerusalem the Lord is risen; He is the Christ; He is the King of 
Kings and Lord of Lords. He is ruling and reigning supremely. And from 
that good hour to the present the glad tidings of good news have been 
spread all over this world, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and He died^ 
according to the scriptures, and He was buried, rose again on the third day, 
according to the scriptures, and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the 
twelve, and then of the others. 1st Cor. 15th chapter. These facts were 
not declared by any one before Petecost. Point out a man that declared 
these fundamental principles before Pentecost. There the gospl was pre- 
pared, in preparation under the ministry of John, and under the ministry of 
Jesus Christ He took up the very same ministry, the very same commission. 
Christ preached, repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; and the 
Elder says it was near then. At hand simply means near by. The kingdom 
was not yet established, according to Elder Laslie. The near approach of 
the kingdom is his exact words. Matt. 16:18;" Upon this rock I will build 
my church." He was the chier corner stone in that foundation. The 
apostles were first set in the church, but bear in mind they were set in the 
foundation, in the substructure, and not in the superstructure. I have 
car.ed his attention to that two or three times. The apostles were first set 
in the church, but they were set in the foundation and not in the building. 
(Elder Laslie.) I would like for you to prove that- 
(Brother Willi's.) I am not supposed to prove anything. I will accom- 
modate you, however. Eph. 2:20; "And are built upon the foundation of 
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner 
stone." Does that suit you?" 

(Elder Laslie,). That is just what I wanted. 

131 



(Brother Willis.) You have got it. I am here with the goods, and I 
have so much dynamite in them I can't hold them down. "Upon this rock." 
They drank of that rock; they followed Him, and that rock was Christ. 1st 
Cor. 12. He goes to the Mount of Transfiguration. Do you mean to affirm 
that the Baptist church is set up on the Mount of Transfiguration? You 
answer one question for me. Is that what you mean? 

(Elder Laslie.) You are making the speech. 

(Brother Willis.) You are afraid of it. You undertook to teach that 
the General Baptist church was established on the Mount of ' Transfiguration. 
Let us read a little and see what we find over there. Matt. 17:1-2-3. 1 
believe that is the reference. "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, Jams, 
and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and 
his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them 
Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto 
Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here 
three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While 
he yet spake, behoM, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice 
out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased; bear ye him." If I understand the Elder he means to say that the 
Baptist church was established here on the mountain. Was the foundation 
laid there, Elder? Does Zion mean on the Mount of Transfiguration? Come 
on and tell us whether Zion is Jerusalem, or is it the Mount of Transfigura- 
tion? Isn't it strange I can't drag him out on that? I have been try:"ng to 
get him out on this all the time. I affirm that Zion is Jerusalem without 
fear of contradiction. He won't take a stand on this. Zion means Jeru- 
salem. The foundation of the Church of Christ was laid in Zion, Jerusalem, 
and the superstructure builded on that foundation. Now if you take the 
position that the church was builded on the Mount of Transfiguration you 
are to prove whether it was tried, and when it was tried. The foundation 
of the Church of Jesus Christ was laid in Jerusalem, and not on the Mount 
of Transfiguration. He is tender-footed on that. Let him come out a little 
more fully on that. You will be limping and hopping through this entire 
debate, too. I don't blame him for limping. In Him (that is in Christ) is 
the fulness of the law. I believe that. Christ is the end of the law, is 
what Paul says about it, and the law was abolished, not on the Mount of 
Transfiguration; not with the beginning of John's ministry, but the law was 
abolished in the death of Jesus Christ. Let's see if we can prove that in 
the 2nd chapter and in the 14th and 15th verses of Ephesians. Wte find 
this: "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, .and hath broken 
down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his 
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; 
for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that 
he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the 
enmity thereby." Eph. 2:14-15. I asked him once, or twice what that 

132 



7iieant, and lie liasnH answered to this good hour. I say that that one 
":new man is the one new church, the church of Jesus Christ as written in 
*ny proposition and as proven beyond a doubt. The law ended in the death 
K)f Jesus Christ. He was nailed to the cross after this ordinance. Col. 2. 
iNot under the law any longer. That is what the Elder said. I suppose he 
"meant — he wasn't specific in his statement — but I suppose he meant when 
John's ministry began he wasn't under the law any longer. Is that what 
;you meant, Elder? 

(Elder Laslie.) No, sir. 

(Brother Wf.lis.) Tell us in your next speech, what you meant by that 
expression. I say they were not under the law after the going forth of the 
gospel in Jesus Christ from Zion. There is the beginning of the law. It 
went forth from Jerusalem and we are under the law no longer. "For the 
letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." 2nd Cor. 3:6. Luke 4:43, the 
gospel preached by Jesus Christ; a gospel of preparation. The same gospel 
preached by John the Baptist. He died, buried and rose again, did not 
■exist, But they were declared after Pentecost, because the facts did 
exist. Mark. 1:14 on the same. Matt, 9:14; miraculous power. He calls 
attention to miraculous power that was demonstrated in Jesus Christ. 
Therefore the Baptist church is identical in origin, name, doctrine and 
practice. What was that miraculous power for under the ministry of Christ 
and given to the apostles? The Book of God tells us what it was for. It 
was for the purpose of confirmation. Read Mark 16:20. God confirmed the 
wrords of the apostles with signs following. That is the reading of Mark 
16:20. We will give another scripture in proof of the fact that signs and 
miracles were for the purpose of confirmation. Read Hebrew 2:1-2-3-4, 
"Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we 
have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken 
oy angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a 
just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great 
salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was con- 
firmed unto us by them that heard him; God a 1 so bearing them witness, 
with both signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy 
Ghost, according to his own will." That solves the question. Signs and 
miracles are for the purpose of confirming the fact; secondly, that the 
apostles were divinely commissioned, and that they were the ambassadors 
of the Lord, and signs and miracles confirmed those facts and that was the 
purpose. The kingdom of God come upon you. But it was in this prepara- 
tory state. Note that down, Elder. 

The Lord's Supper in the church. It wasn't put in the church before 
Pentecost, because the church didn't exist. The Church of Christ was 
builded on Pentecost and the supper was placed in that kingdom after that 
day. 

Baptism in the church. No, that isn't a church ordinance. If it was a 
church ordinance it would have to be repeated. There is a repetition in 

133 



church ordinances; you know that. Listen to me. He says, yes, there is a 
repetition in ordinances. Is there a repetition in baptism? You say it is a 
church ordinance. You have admitted there was a repetition in church 
ordinances. How many times do you baptize your converts, anyway? No, 
baptism is not a church ordinance. It is an initiatory right into the kingdom 
or church of Jesus Christ. We are baptized, according to the great com- 
mission, into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are baptized 
into Christ and then we put on Christ. (To be baptized into Christ simply 
means to be baptized into His body, the church, it isn't a church ordinance, 
but it is an initiatory rite. We believe; we repent unto Christ, but we 
are baptized into Christ.) In Gen. 3:15, the promised seed. Yes, we have 
the gospel in promise. We have it again in Gen. 12:3, the gospel in promise 
He quotes Isa. 53:4-5-6. We have the prophecy, a chain of prophecies reach- 
ing to Jesus Christ and no one can take a link out of that chain, and it 
reaches down for seven hundred years or more. Dan. 39:4; Zech. 9:11. We 
have a church in prophecy; Gal. 3:13. We have here the prophecy, that 
promise fulfilled in Gal. 3. We have the promise fulfilled. 

That is all I wish to notice. He is going to waist and pile the questions 
on me. Elder, why don't you deal fairly and squarely with me? You piled 
those questions on me yesterday evening in your last speech. I answered 
them all the same. Why don't you tote fair with me? Now, Mr. Steno- 
grapher, I want you to get those questions. 

1. Does the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 16:19, refer to Baptist churches? 

2. Did Peter open the door of the General Baptist church on Pente- 
cost? 

3. Is it not a misrepresentation to call a sister a Baptist? 

4. Is baptism a church ordinance? 

5. Is baptism one of the things to be observed in Matt. 28:20? 

6. What is baptism for? 

7. Can you carry out the commission without preaching baptism? 

8. Can you be saved by faith alone? 

9. Is faith a direct gift from God? 

10. Can a man believe into Christ? 

11. W[hat produces faith? 

12. What produces repentance? 

13. Had the jailer repented when he was told to believe? Acts 16:31; 
Acts 2:3, that is to believe firmly. 

14. Is repentance a turning to the Lord? 

15. Did you have faith before you repented? 

16. Is a man saved at faith, or repentance? 

17. What does faith do for him ? 

18. What does repentance do for him? 

19. Is repentance a direct gift from God? 

I want to occupy the rest of my time on the church. What is a church ? 
An ecclesia called out. An ecclesia of Acts in 19:32 was a church, but not 

134 



the Church of Christ. It isn't every called out people that are the Church of 
Christ. General Eaptists are people called out but not the Church of Christ, 
simply because they haven't been called out, according to the New Testa- 
ment. Sometimes the ecclesia is limited to the church in a local sense. The 
church at Jerusalem, Acts 8:1; at Antioch, Acts 11:26; 1st Cor. 16:19; Gal. 
1:2; at Rome, Rom. 16:16; Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 12:23. The church 
is sometimes spoken of as the kingdom; Matt. 16:19. I think he agrees on 
that point. Col. 1:18, we read where people are being translated into the 
kingdom of God's dear church; Rom. 14:17; Rev. 1:9. When established? 
Church or kingdom was in promise; Gen. 12:1-3; Gal. 3:15-16. In prophecy, 
Dan. 2:44; Isa. 24:4; Matt. 3:12; Matt. 10:7; Luke 10:9, another fact fixed, 
firmly established; Acts 2. The apostles began their work under a new 
commission. Repentance and remission of sins were declared in the name 
of Christ. Three thousand were added, and the Lord added daily to the 
church such as were being saved. Repentance and remission of sins in 
the name of Christ began to be preached at Jerusalem. John preached 
repentance and remission of sins, but not in the name of Christ. John 
administered baptism, but not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. Repentance and remission of sins in the name of Christ began at 
Jerusalem. Christ is the head of the body, the church; Col. 1:18. Christ 
is the law-giver. Christ is the great high priest. He is ruling and reigning 
supremely and He will rule and reign until the last enemy is destroyed by 
death. Then He will become subject to the Father the same as you and I. 

Now then, Elder Laslie has made two speeches on this proposition 
affirming that the General Baptist churches, one of which I, T. A. H. Laslie, 
am a member, are identical in origin, doctrine, name and practice, are 
identical with the churches of the New Testament. You haven't got through 
with the origin yet. He hasn't established the church yet. He hasn't told 
us where it began. If he doesn't point out its origin in the Book of God I 
am going to point it out on the outside of the Book. He intimated that it 
had its beginning on the Mount of Transfiguration. I put that question to 
him and he said not yet. He isn't ready to drive his stake yet. You had 
better be careful where you are driving it, Elder. You had better be careful 
or you will get it pulled up. Be careful about driving it on the Mount of 
Transfiguration or at Cesarae Philippi, or at the ascension of Jesus Christ. 
Drive it in Jerusalem here, the foundation of the church of Jesus Chrisit 
and it is a sure foundation. 

(Adjourned to meet tomorrow at 10 a. m.) 



FOURTH DAY— SEPTEMBER 16, 1921 

(Elder Laslie.) Brethren and Moderators and Friends: I am glad that 
I am before you this morning to pursue my argument on the proposition. I 
want you to pay particular attention to it. "The General Baptist churches, 
one of which I, T. A. H. Laslie, am a member, are identical in origin, name, 
doctrine, and practice with the churches of the New Testament. T. A. H. 

135 



Laslie affirms; T. I). Willis denies. "' As I told you in the beginning of thfe 
discussion I didn't word that proposition. Brother Willis sought the ad- 
vantage. Knowing that, however, I accept the situation and stand before- 
you ready to meet him on that proposition. 

The first thing I want to notice is to answer some questions that he* 
gave and boasts about a great deal. He complained because I didn't answer 
them off the reel just like he did. I do not* have to fol.ow his methods. I 
told him he could take them and write them off if he wanted to. What was'* 
the result? Any other man would have become* insulted to accuse him of 
dishonesty. He said, "I don't want to have my answers garbled." I did 
ftot accuse him of dishonesty. He came up here and ungentlerranly accused 
me of dishonesty, and accused me of wanting to garble his answers. Now if 
that is debating you can be the judge of debating. I have not accused 
Brother Willis of being dishonest. I knew his father and mother and grand- 
father, and they Were honest. I won't say that he is not a gentleman, but I 
will say that if I were to accuse him of being dishonest I would not be a 
gentleman. Now you can p'ut it as you please. 

1. "Give the exact date the General Baptist Church was established oru 
the earth/' I told these people at the beginning of my discussion that the 
Church of JeSus Christ was not established in a day. I told him plainly 
that the Church of JeSus Christ was not established on the day of Pentecost,, 
that particular day, and I referred to the plural day in the days of these 1 
kings and showed that it meant more than one day. Now then here is the 
answer. The General Baptist Church wasn't established in one day. It was 
established completely when the last word in Revelation was written. Now 
you have got it. Some gentleman asked me this morning, he says, "I want 
to hear the origin of the General Baptist Church." When the last word, 
the "Amen" in Revelation was written then the General Baptist Church was 
Completely established. Now you hear me, don't you? Brother Willis has 
accepted, has made fourteen admissions to the doctrines that I have estab- 
lished -concerning the General Baptist Church. The trouble with Brother 
Willis — and here the advantage comes in, and he said it on purpose. I 
accepted the propositions as he worded them and permitted him to state as 
he believed, and if I had treated him that way I will say I would not be st 
gentfeman. 1 let him state what he believed in his own way, knowing that 
the Campbellite Church is what he is. 

(Brother Willis.) I deny that. 

(Elder Laslie.) Why didn't you say that it Was not? Why didn't you 
show it? I called for a history showing you wasn't and you haven't got a 
history. You haven't a man that ever wrote a word about the origin of the 
church but What you have condemned. Here is an illustrated book of religion 
which Says Campbell was the origin. Here is one of the men in the Church 
of Jesus Christ saying that they were driven out of the Baptist church. He 
states indisputably that Campbell was the origin. They trace their origin 
there. There is Vol 2 of Kidp'ath's Standard Encyclopedia showing Camp- 

136 



bell was the origin; that they were originally known as Campbeliites. Here 
is what it says: "Later on being excluded from the Baptist church because 
of his views, he. founded in 1827 a separate body, at first known as Camp- 
bellites, but lator as the Disciples of Christ." Standard American Encyclo- 
pedia, Vol. 2, page 824. Now he says "we deny it." There is the brains of 
men who have been taken as standard historians all over the country, and 
yet he says "I deny it." 

(Brother Willis.) I deny it. You are in the affirmative. 

(Elder Lasiie.) I bring the Bible to prove what I say. Now keep still. 
I am going to twist you. I will let you take Campbell as a nickname, when 
you know that General Baptist is a nickname just the same. We take our 
nickname; you are ashamed of yours. You know that you have got more 
than one nickname'; you are called Disciples. There is the origin of the 
Disciples; you are called Christians, and your brother sitting here, a good 
man, you unchurch him because he is a member of the Christian church. 
You unchurched Dr. Briney, the ablest man of your faith in Kentucky, be- 
cause he was a member of the Christian church. This debate was gotten 
up, these notes were prepared for a discussion that I conducted with Dr. J. 
B. Briney at Slaughtersville. He would not have any name but the Christian 
church. Now this brother says he is not a Christian. One of the proposi- 
tions was that water baptism to the penitent believers was in order to the 
remission of past sins. What was another proposition ? I met time and 
again with these men and they always put up the same thing, affirm that 
the church of which I am a member, known by my brothers as the Church of 
Christ or Christian Church, was organized and established and was set up 
on the day of Pentecost. And thus it goes. Campbellites ? Yes. 

(Brother Willis.) I deny it. 

(Elder Laslie.) Therefore it isn't true because you deny it. (Address- 
ing Moderator Hines.) You shut your mouth. I have got the floor now. 

2. "Who established it?" Christ and the apostles. 

3. "Is the name General Baptist Church in the Bible?" Just like the 
Campbellite church. They belong to the kingdom of God and are called 
Churches of Christ; are denominated General Baptist Churches of Christ. I 
am going to ask the brother if the word General Baptist is not a scripture 
term? Is it unscriptural to denominate people that practice the doctrine of 
Jesus Christ? Does that unchurch people? Then because we baptize by 
immersion, does that unchurch us? We are Baptists and baptize by im- 
mersion for the proper purpose, for the proper administration, and therefore 
we are General Baptists, and it is the teaching of God's word. But Camp- 
bellism is not; I don't care how much you deny it. I don't care how much 
you rear and kick about it; you can kick and shout; we will repeat. There 
it stands on the pages of history and you have got to meet it. You cannot 
help yourself. Listen again. I will take my time in reading these questions 
and making these answers. 

4. "Name the blessings on the inside that cannot be had on the out- 

137 



side." Inside of the Church of Christ; inside of God's kingdom; {Aside of 
the great family of God, of which the General Baptist Church is a part, you 
find the blessings on the inside; baptism and union, church fellowship, etc.* 

5. "Are all the members of Christ's body members of the General- 
Baptist Church'*" No, thank God. There are members of Christ's- body in 
ihat grSnd 6'A Methodist church. My father and mother were Methodists 
and went shouting to the glory land. Were they members of Christ's 
Church? Yes, Sir. There are members of Christ's body in the Missionary 
Baptist church. I have labored with them. I have sat by their bedside; I 
frave held to their haftd while dying. One! of the best girls I ever saw was a 
Missionary" Baptist. She sent for me to come to see her when dying. I 
says, "Fanny, how is it?" She gays, "1 did not send for you for anything 
else but to tell you how I am religiously." She says, "My way is clear; my 
hopes are bright and nothing in my way/' and she began to clap her hands 
and prgise Him, and she died with the glory of God on her lips. She was a 
member of Christ's body. Brother Willis Says no. He has got to admit 
the ancestry of the Church of Christ or he has got to exclude from heaven 
everybody that doesn't belong to another church. Let him do it. The Gen- 
era! Baptist people hold to the universal name Church of Christ. Beginning' 
back yonder, and he admitted it fourteen time's, and I introduced over forty 
passages of scriptures to prove it and made thirty different arguments on 
these passages of scr'pture, and he has not noticed one of them, and he 
comes up here and says, "I deny we are Campbellites." That is the history 
and here are the people that are able to read. 

6. "Do all of God's children belong to Christ's body which is the New 
Testament church?" I have just answered that. Listen. Is it not a fact 
in the 6th question that all of God's children belong to Christ's body which 
is the New Testament church? But, my brother, if you have no more 
Christ in your heart, no more religion, no more Spirit of God in your soul 
than that which you receive by virtue of water you are not members of 
Christ's hody, "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body," and not 
by Water. 

7. "Is the General Baptist church essential to the saving of the soul?" 
No. That is an instrument in God's hands in preaching the gospel, leading 
souls to Christ where they may be saved. Just like the Methodist church, 
Missionary Baptist church, just like any other evangelical church. Shall I 
Come here and stand here and Say your salvation is in my hands and you 
can't be saved unless you are baptized by water into the remission of your 
Sins? I&hall I do it? In the face of God's Word, in the face of all of these 
arguments that he has admitted, in the face of the fact that God hath said 
whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved; in face of the 
fact, John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he 
that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth 
on him." "Hath," Brother Willis; not "whosoever is" baptized by T. D. 
Willis into his so-called body of Christ's Church, which is the Campbellite 

138 



church. "No. It is Christ's word, ''whosoever helieveth." It is the gospel 
hy John, 3rd chapter, 36th verse, whosoever believeth on the Son hath ever- 
lasting life. 

8. "Is the General Baptist church Christ's bride?" The bride is the 
lamb's wife. The bride is composed of God's people, the universal family of 
God, of which those in heaven and those on earth are named. The General 
Baptist people are among those people. Therefore they constitute a part of 
that figurative expression, "part of that body." I will read the answer. 
The entire body of God's children constitute His church, iHis bride. The 
General Baptist church is a part of that body. 

9. "Does your wife wear your name, and why?" You see, Brother 
Willis was going to blow me up. Yes, she wears my name. Why is it? 

An act of the law of marriage gives her my name and freed her from 
the government of her mother's home. "The Spirit of life in Christ Jesus 
hath made me free from the law of sin and death," and taken me out from 
under bondage and brought me under the government of the Spirit of Christ 
Jesus. So I take the name Christian, which you denounce. That becomes a 
child of God, an heir of heaven. You say the law of water baptism makes 
you free from the law of sin and death. Now deny it. Paul says positively 
that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made you free from 
the law of sin and death. You will see who he is blowing up. 

10. *Can a man be a General Baptist preacher who is not a member of 
the church?" What church do you mean? 

(Brother Willis.) General Baptist church. 

(Elder Laslie.) Yes, sir, he can be a General Baptist preacher and not 
a member of the General Baptist church. Listen; put that down. There 
are hundreds of men that are preaching just that thing today. Whosoever 
preaches the doctrine of the General Bapt : st church is a General Baptist 
preacher. Didn't you know that? Does the name make the man? Does 
the name Theodore make you Willis? Wasn't your name Willis before they 
gave you that name? Come on, pretty boy, tell these people. Did the 
name Theodore make you a Willis? Were you your father's child before 
you were born into this world, or did being born make you Melvin WTis' 
son? Then were you a child of God before you were born of water? Did 
"water make you a child of God ? You will see who is getting blowed up. I 
am answering your question. 

11. "Was John a General Baptist preacher?" Which John do you 
have reference to here? 

(Brother Willis.) John the Baptist. 

(Elder Laslie.) As far as he preached he was. Then the next one. We 
want to answer your questions just as they come. 

12. "Is a Baptist one who baptizes?" The term Baptist means a bap- 
tizer. A Baptist is one who believes the doctrines of the church as a lay- 
member. A Baptist is one who baptizes in an official capacity. Do you 
get that? 



13. "Was Christ a Baptist?" Yes, sir, because He preached the doe- 
trine of the Baptist church as far as His mission extended. 

1. "Can a man be a member of the Church of Christ without being a 
Baptist?" Yes, sir. Why? because we baptize by immersion. We don't 
baptize by sprinkling. He can be a member of the great body of Jesus 
Christ without being a Baptist with regard to the form of baptism. 

15. "Can a man be a Christian without being a Baptist?" Yes, sir, a 
child of God without being a Baptist, when it comes to the mode of baptism. 
There are millions of Methodist people today that are children of God that 
were never immersed. There are millions of other people in the world today 
who have never heard of a Baptist preacher by name that have been led to 
Christ through the influence of the Methodist church, through the influence 
of the United Brethren church, the Cumberland Presbyterian church and 
the other Presbyterian churches. Perhaps they have never known there was 
such a name as the Missionary Baptist church or the General Baptist church 
as a body. They are children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. They are 
saved by the blood of Christ Jesus. It hath cleansed them from all sin and 
they were not saved by water. That wh'ch is born of the flesh is flesh; that 
which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, and therefore that which is born o? 
water is water. 

16. "What makes a Christian?" The blood of Christ cleansing him 
from sin. Regeneration by the Spirit; justification by faith. 

17. "What makes him a Baptist?" His believing the entire teachings 
of God's word, and practicing them. 

18. "Will the gospel save a man?" Paul says, "We preach Christ 
crucified." "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greek." Again 
Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of 
God." What is the gospel? The power of God unto salvation. Paul 
preached Christ crucified, Christ the wisdom of God, and whoever preaches 
the gospel has Christ, and that is the power of salvation. 

19. "Does it take more than the gospel to make a General Baptist?" 
No, sir. 

20. "Name one essential thing that separates you from other Chris- 
tians." He didn't say essential to what. 

"Does the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 16:19, refer to Baptist churches?" 
Yes, sir, as a part of the great kingdom of God. 

"Did Peter open the door of the General Baptist church at Pentecost?" 
Yes, sir, as a member of the great family of God. Eph. 3:14-21. Now I 
want to read that* "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 
That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strength- 
ened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in 
your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be 
able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, an)d 
depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, 

140 



chat lie "might be filled with all the iulhess of God. Now unto him that is 
able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to 
the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory in the church by Christ 
Jesus throughout all ages, world without end," Who ever heard anybody 
praise the Lord in his church? 

"Is it not a misrepresentation to call a sister a Baptist"?" No, sir. 

"Is baptism a church ordinance?" Yes, sir. 

"Is "baptism one of the things to be observed in Matt. 28:29?" Yes, 
sir; when we have observed it we liave observed it. It doesn't tell us in 
Matt. 28:29 how many times anything should be done. When I have obeyed 
the law in being baptized I have observed that ordinance. There is not a 
thing in God's word saying how often you should take the sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper, nor how often we should be baptized. I have bapfzed them 
more than once. I have had them come to me from the gentleman's church 
and say, "I was baptized one time in order to have my sins forgiven, and 
now I am going to be baptized because they are forgiven. 7 ' 



(Moderator Jones.) We are very grateful indeed to those who prepared 
'the beautiful bouquets and brought them here. I know not who prepared 
them. I find that they are here, and they are beautiful, and we appreciat Q 
them. I heard some brother this morning on the ground — you know 1 
haven't anything to do but listen when I pass around — and I heard some 
brother on the ground as I was wa'king around say, "There went Sam 
Jones." You are a little bit mistaken, and not so much. It is Sam's oldest 
hoy, a chip off of the old block, and so you did not miss it so very far. I 
believe I will give you my full name. I am known in the General Bapt"st 
■paper, and among the General Baptist churches, and among the General 
Baptist preachers, and among the General Missionary Baptists, and among 
the general Christian people that I worship and mix with in Sumner countv, 
Tennessee, and in Allen county and in Macon county and in Jackson countv, 
and in the various counties in Kentucky as old-fashioned common Cornbread 
Bill. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 1 never 
'was more happy than to rise in the presence of this audience this morning 
and to reply to th's gentleman's speech. The first thing he did was to 
Squeal. He squealed yesterday morning in his affirmative speech. He com- 
plains of the wording of the proposition. He says, "Willis worded the prop- 
osition." I did, and you signed the proposition. 

(Elder Laslie.) I did in order to get a chance to take a Whack at you. 

(Brother Willis.) And you signed your death warrant, and here are 
the flowers to decorate your grave. I don't need your flowers; you need 
them. We decorate the graves of the dead with flowers. 

(Elder Laslie.) I wouldn't take five dollars for that statement. 'That 
Isn't all 

141 



(Brother Willis.) He thought he would rush me into this proposition 
and I wouldn't be prepared. I am loaded all the time, Elder. 

(Elder Laslie.) He made a statement he cannot prove. He says 1 
signed this proposition in order to hurry this debate, and these brothers that 
were sent after me know that is absolutely untrue, and you are going to 
take it back. Now, whenever you make a false statement on me you are 
going to take it back. You cannot stand up there and make false state- 
ments on me. 

(Brother Willis.) Didn't you promise me yesterday evening you would 
keep still? 

(Elder Laslie.) You tell the truth. 

(Brother Willis.) That isn't all. He set the time for this discussion 
to be on the 13 th of September. Don't you know, Elder, that is an unlucky 
day? What did he say he was going to do yesterday morning in his open'ng 1 
speech? Do you remember? He said he was going to establish, first, the 
origin of the General Baptist church; secondly, he was going to establish 
doctrine, and thirtdy, he was go'ng to establish practice, and last, he says, 
"I will let the people name the thing." The "thing" is named in that prop- 
position and you have your name written there on your proposition affirming 
the name. The name is right in the proposition. The people don't want to 
name the thing. 

Did he establish origin yesterday? One day is gone into history. Did 
he establish origin? Did he put his finger on one chapter and verse that 
tells us where the General Bapt'st church had its beginning? And that is 
the definition of the term "origin." He says it means beginning. I accept 
it. Did he put his finger on the chapter, book or verse that gives us the 
beginning of the General Baptist church? I deny it, and I want to say 
furthermore, and I have repeated once, that the General Bapt'st church isn't 
within the lids of the Bible, and no wonder he squeals. He is obliged to find 
that name, to point out that name. You remember I said yesterday evening 
that the gentleman couldn't either lead nor follow, and he can't do either 
He is an affirmant, and his speech here this morn'ng was in the negative, 
charging me with being a Campbellite. Produce the record and show it. 
Here is a check for one hundred dollars, and whenever you do it I will turn 
this check over to you. 

(Elder Laslie.) It would not be any account. It would be a cold check. 

(Brother Willis.) It would be a bogus record if you produced it. 

(Moderator Bines.) I will cash it. 

(Brother Willis.) You do not know about dishonesty. Now produce. 
Now suppose I was to say there was no such a church as the General Baptist 
church; how would you go about proving it? Now keep quiet. I say how 
would you go about proving it? How would you prove there was such an 
institution as the General Baptist church? You would produce the record. 
You would go to Lone Star and get the church record and produce it and 
establish the fact that there was a General Baptist church. Now come on 

142 



with your record or quit your misrepresentation. There is no such institu- 
tion in the world as a Campbellite church and never was. He said yes- 
terday, or day before probably, that he weighed 165 pounds and his debating 
capacity was a little over a ton. I want to say to you, Elder, that the scales 
you were weighed on were old rusty scales and they missed your weight 
about 1999 pounds. You have been tested. 

In his speech yesterday he admits that the law ended at the cross of 
Christ. Paul says, "A testament is of force after men are dead." Heb. 9:17. 
His proposition calls for New Testament churches. Yes. Therefore, he 
must come this side of the cross to establish the church. Go to it, Elder. 
In so far as his talking about dishonesty is concerned I will let that pass. 
I am no stranger here. I have been preaching here for a number of years 
and the people know me and they know him. 

Now in answer to the question given by us as to the exact date that the 
General Baptist church was established on earth. See how he answered that 
question, how he quibbled? He says the General Baptist church wasn't 
established in a day. No, it wasn't completed, he says, until the amen in 
Revelations. That is the way he answered. 'Suppose he would have asked 
ire that kind of question when I was in the affirmative, when the Church of 
Chr'st was established, the exact day. I would have told him right off the 
reel. On the first Pentecost after the ascension of Christ in Jerusalem, in 
the year 33 A. D. Why didn't you answer? Simply because you can't, and 
no wonder you squeal. 

Campbellite church. I have offered the gentleman one hundred dollars 
reward and ail kinds of reward around here, and will give him an automobile 
ride when you produce your record; so do it or quit your talking about the 
Campbellite church. Do you know why folks use that nickname? They do 
it to drive folks away from the truth. This is a skinning machine and the 
hide is going to fly. He said when I closed my affirmative that the wool is 
going: to fly off the other fellow. He knew what was coming, and the wool 
is flying. He said the General Baptist church was a nickname. Listen at 
his proposition. He couldn't even quote their proposition. It seems to me 
he didn't even want to read it. Let's see his proposition. The General 
Baptist churches, one of which I, T. A. H. Laslie am a member, are identical 
in origin, name, doctrine, and practice with the churches of the New Testa- 
ment. Now he turns around and says the name is a nickname. You give 
up your proposition, Elder. Give me your hand and let us stand on the 
church foundation. You have surrendered your proposition. He says it is 
a nickname. Take it off your church record. Why don't you repudiate it? 
He thinks the name Church of Christ is all right. Yes, sir. He don't call 
in question my affirmation. Why don't you wear the name of Jesus Christ 
collectively and individually? Why do you step aside and become a party 
of a human institution ? I charged him yesterday with being a pillar of the 
General Baptist church. He is one of the pillars, and he has not called any 
question to this good hour, and now he says the name General Baptist is a 

143 



nickname. You Lone £tar folks had better look out Here. You are wearing" 
a nickname according to your champion representative. And I want to say 
to you here by way of commendation, I want to commend the gentleman for' 
what he is worth. He is one of the greatest debaters in* the General Baptist 
church. He has had experience, and if he can't defend this proposition 
there is not a man off earth that can defend it. There is not a man on earth 
that could do it. He seems to think that I laid a trap for him. I have 1 
debated this proposition before With Missionary Baptists and I am ready to 
do so a'ga!n whenever one sticks his head* up'. They are fair propositions; 
and I Won't debate any other kind, and no man will call this in question as 
being an unfair proposition. They are Just to all parties. He affirms the' 
name, origin, doctrine and practice of h's church. 

He wants to know if the name Baptist is a scriptural term. Yes, that 
is not an English term, an Anglicized Creek word; but I want to say it is 
unscriptural to apply the name Bapt'st to that institution. That is what I 
am obiec+ifig to, Sir. He appeals to $mith. to the Methodises and the Mis- 
sionaries and all the sects, still he is fighting them occasionally. You need 
Smith, Elder, and you need him bad and you know it. I don't know any 
Smith; no; knew his reputation. Three or four times he says I have de- 
nounced the name Christian. I have never denounced the name Christian. 
I be ieve it was given by Divine authority, and I challenge you to take up 
Acts 11:26 and state Who objects to *h« origin of the word "called." I gave 
you the original word, which s'mply means to declare by an oracle. It is 
not necessary to give the Creek, and besides, the shorthand writer tells me 
he does hot know Creek and therefore he cannot take it and the Elder has 
been wanting me to read Creek to these people. 

He says a man can be a General Baptist preacher without belonging to 1 
the Baptist Church. You have turned yourself loose. Let him point out a 
General Baptist preacher that is not a member of the General Baptist 
church. I say he can't do it and you say you can do it. Now come on with 
the proof. You remember he gave the definition in one of these questions I 
asked, Was a Baptist a baptizer? He knows where there is trouble. He 
gave the O'eek definition and said a Baptist is one that baptizes. That is 
Correct- The Word Baptist is from the Original Word "baptistes," which 
means baptizer. Was Christ a Baptist? He says yes. You are in trouble, 
EMer. Did He baptize? Now if He did, according to your definition He is 
a Baptist, and if He did not He is not a Baptist. He is tied hand and foot. 
He said a Baptist is one who baptizes, and Said Christ baptized. Now let 
him affirm that Christ baptized. I asked him could he be a Christian with- 
out being a Baptist and he says yes. In the name of Cod what do you want 
to become a Baptist for ? But you can be a Christian without being baptized 
at all. Then why are you baptized? If you can become a Christian you can 
live the Christian iife and die and go home to heaven without being a 
Baptist. Good bye, General Baptist church. Good bye. 

NoW 1 aSked him t(3 name the essential thing that separates him from 

144 



other Baptists. He says there are no essentials. I wonder why he has been 
debating with the Missionary Baptists and now ready to tackle them again. 
If nothing separates them but non-essentials, tell us why you are debating 
with the Hard Shell Baptists? You are in the affirmative now. You are 
quibbling about non-essentials, according to your own admission. You had 
better lay down. About the first discussion he ever had was at Caneyville 
with an old Primitive Baptist. Wasn't that the first, Elder? 

(Elder Laslie.) No, sir. 

(Brother Will's.) I know I was very young. 

(Elder Laslie.) I had four discussions before that. 

(Brother Willis.) He said he was ready again, he told me during the 
debate, and still there is nothing divides him but non-essentials. I will never 
skirmish over a non-essential. No indeed. 

Now listen. He says Peter opened the door of the General Baptist 
church on Pentecost. You are up against it now, Elder. I demand that 
you prove it, s:r. I don't have to prove anything. I was in the affirmative 
the first two days, and you will learn that I can both lead and follow. You 
are in the affirmative now and I demand the proof. I deny that Peter 
opened the door of the General Baptist church on Pentecost, or anywhere 
else. Now you Baptists watch him and see if he proves it. I will teach 
you a few tricks, Elder. Watch him now. It is your interest to do it. He 
has affirmed that Peter opened the door of the General Baptist church on 
Pentecost, and he says it was a nickname. What was Peter fooling with 
that kind of an institution for? Do you think Peter would deal with adul- 
teration? That is what he was doing according to your statements. No, 
he didn't open the door to a General Baptist church, because it wasn't in! 
existence, and wasn't in existence for probably 1600 years. I promised the 
E'der if he didn't point out the General Baptist church in the Bible I would 
show his on the outside. I can take you back to the first Baptist church in 
1607 in England when Mr. Smith, who was the father of the thing and 
baptized himself, and I am here with the goods to prove it. Now deny it. 
Peter opened the door of the General Baptist church! He opened the door 
of the Church of Jesus Christ on Pentecost; that blood-bought institution. 
Jesus Christ gave His body and He shed His precious blood. He purchased 
it with His own blood, gave Himself for it "That he might Sanctify and 
cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it 
to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such th'ngs; 
but that it should be holy and without blemish." Eph. 5. That is the insti- 
tution that Jesus Christ died for; and thank the Lord, I am a member of 
that institution, and bless His Holy name, I am here to defend it. 

He says it isn't a misrepresentation to call a sister a Baptist. He is 
the worst mixed up fellow I ever saw. He said yesterday when I handed 
him those questions I asked him to answer off the reel. I am going to deal 
fairly with you, Elder, but in my last speech you pulled on me thirty 
questions. I said, "Elder, I am going to answer them right off the reel." I 

145 



have softie to put to you, and X have softie more yet. He talked yesterday 
like he was going to break my neck. You know whose neck was broken. 
Oh, yes, that is a nickname. You had better quit wearing it and wear 
Divine names. It isn't a misrepresentation to call a sister a Baptist. He 
said a Baptist Was one who baptizes, and he turned around and said Christ 
to&& a Baptist. Christ did not baptize. Now in answer to the question "Is- 
it a misrepresentation to call a sister a Baptist?" he said no. Do your 
Sisters baptise? 

(Elder Lasfie.) Sometimes they d<& 

(Brother Willis.) Point them out. You are authorized by the great 
commission to preach the gospel and administer baptism. If so, prove it. 
There is affother issue. I debated With a poor fellow who is dead. I pushed 
him on that point and I Said, ''Are your sisters baptizing?" and he said 
yes. I said, "Name them/' He attempted to name two. I don f t know 
whether he Was correct or not. If sisters are administering baptism they 
are Baptists, and nobody is a Baptist according to the strict sense of the 
term unless he baptizes, 

I want to read you some from a good Baptist. I introduced some mis- 
sionaries as Witnesses and he quarreled with me. I have one flow to intro- 
duce, J. B. Jeter. Isn't he all right?' He is my witness. I introduce him' 
On the question aS to Whether or not Alexander Campbell established a 
church. On page 21 1 read, "It does not appear to have been the purpose 
of Mr. Campbell, or at least in the Commencement of his reformation, to 
Organize a' new sect *.<*** Now he proceeds to quote from Campbell; 
"I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of rtew Sects. This game has 
been played to6 long. 1 labored to See sectarianism abolished, and all 
Christians of every kind united upon the one foundation upon which the 
Apostolic church was founded. To break down Baptists and Paedo-Baptists, 
to this, is my supreme eftd." Now take that for what it is worth. Now you 
remember I haven't given a quotation, with the exception of this one, from 
Campbell in this debate. He isn't authority in this. The Word of God is 
authority; but when he goes off into "old musty history" I have to use them. 
I am not following Campbell. I am not wearing the name, notwithstanding 
1 believe he was a great and good man, and one of the most learned men in 
the United States; but he Wasn't good enough or consecrated enough for me 
to wear his name or follow him. That is the reason I refuse to be called a 
Campbellite. Listen. Jesus Christ is my great leader. I was baptized into 
His name. I Was initiated into His church. I am wearing His njkme col- 
lectively and individually because of that fact. He is my Captain and my 
leader; hertce I want to glorify Him by wearing His flame because He died 
to redeem me. ts that right or wrong, Elder? Here are Some questions, Elder; 

1. Is conversion a miracle, or an act of moral suasion? 

2. What part of mail is Converted, body, Soul or spirit? 
,3. Can a man be saved who refuses to be baptized? 

4. Is baptism a command of Christ? 

146 



5. Can any one get into the Baptist church without "being baptized? 

6. Can any one get into the kingdom of heaven without it? 

7. W,as the General Baptist church established under the Jewish dis- 
pensation? 

8. When did the Jewish dispensation end? 

9. WJhen did the Christian dispensation begin? 

10. Is the Christian dispensation the last dispensation? 

11. Was the New Testament in force before the death of Christ? 

12. Did Christ become head of the church before H:'s ascension? 

13. Was baptism administered in the name of Christ before His death? 

14. In whose name did John the Baptist baptize? 

15. Was repentance and remission of sins in the name of Chr'st preached 
before His death? 

16. When did Christ become King of Kings and Lord of Lords? 

17. Was He High Priest while on earth? 

18. What apostle first preached, the death, burial and resurrection 
of Christ? 

19. Is the Lord's Supper a church ordinance? 

20. Was it put in the General Baptist church, and by whom? 

Look out, Elder, these things are loaded and will blow you up and you 
will look like a busted balloon whenever you are through. I thank you, 
ladies and gentlemen, for the good attention. 



(Elder Laslie.) Brethren, Moderators and Friends: I am before you 
to close my part of the discussion for this morning, and I never felt better 
in my life. It is just a little bit curious to me why Brother Willis fails to 
answer argument. I can't understand why it is that he will not attempt to 
answer a single argument that I have introduced. My scriptures all stand 
unchallenged; my arguments all stand unchallenged, and the answers to my 
questions stand unimpeached whatever. I cannot understand why it is that 
he will so persist in flat misrepresentations. I didn't do him that way. I 
did not misrepresent him on anything at all. I only bring forward the au- 
thorities, and when it comes to answering authorities he says, "I deny it; 
I deny it." The infidel says, "I deny that there is a God," but does that 
prove there is not a God? The Bible says, "The fool says in his heart, 
there is no God." Does that prove there is no God? I am not going to call 
Brother Willis a fool, but it shows the unfairness of the man with whom I 
discuss to say, "I deny it," and not make a single solitary effort to disprove 
the argument that is made. Now his brethren here commenced bobbing 
up awhile ago. Now, brethren, if you want testimony from this audience, 
you can have it. 

(Brother Willis.) I don't want them to do that. Brethren, please do 
not do that. 

(E'der Laslie.) I want them to stay and take their medicine. I just 
want to give them warning that if you persist in this, and if you want this 

147 



audience to testily as to whetner Brother Willis has done anything at all 
in this debate or not, I am willing to submit it. I do not know these people. 
I have not a church within — how far is it to Lone Star? I have a church 
in three miles of this place. I do not know this audience; there may be five 
to one of the members of that brother's church here, yet I am willing to 
submit the decision to this audience. Do you hear me? Now will you go 
to the test? 

(Brother Willis.) Yes, sir. 

(Elder Laslie.) If you persist in this it is going to come, sure. Do you 
hear it? NIow I hope the audience will stay and hear Brother Willis through, 
as you have heard me through. You have heard me through in every debate 
and every discussion. If he does anything give him credit for it. If he is 
unfair, note it down. Take the authority; take the argument. That is all 
we are here for, and no bombasting. I piled up history after history there. 
What did he say about it? He said, "I deny it." Did that prove that these 
men that are accepted as authorities all over the United States were false? 
What is Brother Willis' brain, or mine, either one, what is our little, puny 
brain as compared with such men as Ridpath and others who compiled this 
reference book? What is your little brain, or mine, compared w'th these? 
How dare you say they are liars? I would not do that for my right arm; 
and yet he says that they are liars. I have the history of General Baptist 
in all places and different forms and in different shapes. The first General 
Baptist church in London, England, was organized in 1607 under that name. 
Go and read Orchard, read Benedict; go and read Tayler; read any Baptist 
history that you please and you will find that the Baptist church has gone 
backwards and backwards until we find it in Pamphylia, and yet it is 
preaching the original doctrine of justification by faith, and he knows it. 

Now he says, "He didn't reject my proposition as to the Church of 
Christ." He knows flat-footed I did say that your right to the name Church 
of Christ has nothing more to do with the church that you belong to than 
it has to the Mormon church. You heard me say it, and he never challenged 
it. He said it was a specific name. I called on him to give the chapter and 
verse and prove it was a specific name. He introduced a lot of different 
names and applied them to the church and I said, "Yes, they all apnlv to 
the church, but to no specific church nor to any specific institution." I 
called long and loud, give the chapter and verse that his church was built 
by Divine authority, specific, separate and apart from other bodies, and he 
hasn't done it to this hour. He is no part of it, and when I said he was no 
part of it he did not deny it. He says we are tlrs and that and the other, 
and I called on him for the proof and he does not give it. Let us notice: 

"Is baptism a church ordinance?" Yes, sir. 

"Is baptism one of the commandments?" Yes, sir. 

"What is baptism for?" Water baptism represents the burial and 
resurrection of Christ Jesus, and the burial of the old man and the resurrec- 
tion to a new life. Rom. 6:4. 

148 



v 'Can "you be saved hy faith alone V* "We are saved by repentance toward 
God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Heb. 11:6. Gal. 3:26. 

"Is faith a direct gift from God?" Faith is both the gift of God and 
the act of the creature. 

"Can a man believe into Christ?" Men believe in Christ, "and by one 
spirit we are all baptized into one body." 1st Cor. 12:13; John 3:16. 

"Can you carry out the commission without preaching baptism?" No, 
sir. Christ said, Go ye, therefore, teach all nations; baptizing in the name 
of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Now turn to the next. 

"What produces faith?" Faith is the gift of God and the act of the 
creature. Eph. 1:13. Now let us read Eph. 1:13 to the end. I want to see 
whether this brother will answer these arguments or not. Understand, we 
are taking this subject right under here and placing the doctrines of the 
church in the church, or saying, rather, what the doctrines of the church 
are. "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the 
gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed," ye believed 
and were baptized. Is that it ? Brother Willis, you never thought what you 
were doing when you asked that question. Listen. "In whom ye also trusted, 
after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: n whom 
also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise." 
Not after that ycu believed T. D. Willis took you down into the water and 
baptized you into Christ, but after that ye believed ye were sealed with 
that holy spirit of promise, "Which is the earnest of our inheritance until 
the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory. 
Wherefore, I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love 
unto a'l the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you 
in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, 
may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of 
him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know 
what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his in- 
heritance in the saints." That is the doctrine of the General Baptist church 
and done there by Paul to the Ephesians. 

Then again, to know assuredly. Acts 2:36, to believe firmly. 

"Is baptism a church ordinance?" Yes, sir. 

"What produces repentance?" Rom. 2:4. The goodness of God. 2nd 
Cor. 2:10. That is the exact position of the General Baptist church. That 
is General Baptist doctrine and, therefore, it is the same identical thing in 
either instance. 

"Had the jailer repented when he was told to believe? Acts 16:31; 
Acts 2:3." Let us turn to Acts 16:31. What do we find here? "Then he 
called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before 
Paul and Silas." He was trembling, he was sorrowful and he fell down. 
What did he do ? He inquired just as the pentinent does in a General Baptist 
meeting or in a Missionary Baptist meeting, he said, "Sirs, what must I do 
to be saved? And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 

149 



shalt be saved, and thy house." Did they tell the truth about the matter? 
He was repentant; he was seeking salvation. He came and inquired of the 
way of life and he wanted to know how to be saved, and they said, "Believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Brother Willis, did 
they tell him the truth? Did the apostles here lie about it? Why didn't 
they tell him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will baptize you 
and you will be saved? Why didn't they tell him that? 

"Is to know assuredly in Acts 2:36 to believe firmly?" Let us read 
Acts 2:36. "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God 
hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." 
Listen to the answer. Yes, sir, it means that, and more than that. I know 
assuredly; we do not believe a thing, we know it. Wfe know a thing. I don't 
believe that two and two make four; I know it. I don't believe that Brother 
Willis is a white man, because I know that. I do not believe that we are 
under a Republican form of government (I do not mean political, but I mean 
in form and character). I do not believe that we are under a Republican 
form of government, because I know it. So it means more than to s'mply 
know a thing. It means to trust a thing; it means to have confidence in 
that thing and to depend on that thing. Now to know assuredly and depend 
on it as a fact and as a truth, rely on it as something infallible, tha!t this 
same Christ that you crucified and hanged on a tree stands today both 
Lord and Christ and God over all and blessed forever. 

"Is repentance a turning to the Lord?" Listen. That is the fifth 
time. Yes, sir, intellectually, literally and spiritually it is a turning to 
the Lord. 

"Did you have faith before you repented?" I had an historic faith. I 
believed that the Bible was true. I believed that Jesus Christ from an 
historic standpoint was a Son of God. The goodness of God in the face of 
this historic belief led me to sorrow for sin; this led me to repentance, and 
this led me to the point of saving trust, faith in Christ. Here is the answer: 
An historic faith. Heb. 11:6. 

"Is a man saved at faith, or repentance?" The result of our faith is 
the salvation of the soul. 1st Pet. 1:7-9. Come up here, Peter, and let us 
see what you say about it. Let us see whether we receive at the end of our 
faith the salvation of our souls. Beginning with the 3rd verse, he says, 
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according 
to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, 
and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are 
kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed 
in the last time. Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if 
need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial 
of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though 
it be tried with fire, might be found unto pra:'se and honor and glory at the 
appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom, having not seen, ye love; in whom, 

150 



though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable 
and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of 
your souls." That is what Peter says, and that is my answer, and that is 
the doctrine of the General Baptist church. Faith brings us in touch with 
Christ; we receive the salvation of our souls; our body and souls are lift 
into heaven on the resurrection morning to be with Him in glory, before 
the world was. 

"Is a man saved by faith, or repentance?" I have answered that. 

"What does faith do for him?" 1st Pet. 1:4-5. That is what faith 
does for him; brings him up to the point, and at the end of his death the 
result is the salvation of his soul. 

"What does repentance do for him ? " It brings him to a saving faith in 
Christ Jesus and the Spirit, where the Spirit puts him into Christ. 

"Is repentance a direct gift from God?" As faith is a gift of God; 
God gives every man the faculty, the power to believe. He gives every man 
the faculty or power to repent. Putting those powers into action is man's 
business. When Christ said repent ye; when Peter says repent; when any 
writer in the Bible says repent it presupposes that God gives him the ability 
to repent. It is the gift of God and the act of the creature. Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Not given the faculty of belief; not given 
the power of belief, but putting that power into practice was the jailer's 
business. God gives to every man the power and the faculty to believe, and 
putting them into belief is his business., Therefore, man's responsibility 
is on himself. God hath not left him without an excuse; He hath taken 
every excuse out of the way. So all that man is required to do is to put 
into action the faculties that God has given him and to lead him on to the 
cross of Christ where he can be cleansed from sin and regenerated by the 
Holy Spirit. Rom. 5:1. "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace 
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom a^o we have access by 
faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of 
God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also; knowing that 
tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, 
hope; And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad 
in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." I thank God for 
His Holy Word; I thank God for a principle that is altogether Divine; for 
a salvation that does not depend on T. D. Willis. The Christ that I serve 
saves me. When it comes to Jesus Christ delegating the saving power into 
the hands of T. D. Willis, I would not worship you a minute. You cannot 
save without baptism and you cannot save without a preacher. T. D. Willis' 
church is the one church of Jesus Christ on earth you can't get into without 
baptism. Therefore, you can't get into it without T. D. Willis. How does 
that correspond with his teachings here? He has been preaching here long 
enough to tell you. I leave it to you. So much for the question. Now we 
are getting along. You see what the doctrine of the General Baptist church 
is; identical with the doctrine of the Bible. 

151 



Church of Christ; ; family of God; kingdbm of heaven",' kingdom of God; 
general atonement; Baptist; General Baptist; identical. (Referring to Mod- 
erator Hines.) There is the most ill-manneredly man I ever saw. He says 
he did not reject my position with regard to the Church of Christ. I leave 
ii to the people, 

"Did Christ baptize ?" No; hut had Christ Jesus not been a Baptist, 
how did he have authority to authorize it? What authority had he if he 
wasn't a' Baptist? I have no authority to go into that gentleman's church, 
but under baptism. What authority did Christ have to command him to be 
baptized? We get bur authority from men that have authority. He was a 
Baptist, 6f fie could not have had authority to command baptism. The 
apostles got their authority from fiim. This gentleman says they are 
members of Sis church md are baptized. Where does the authority come 
from? Where does he get the authority? You See he has unchurched 
himself, 

"Why" are you debating with Missionary Baptists?" Missionary Bap- 
tists are not ift this debate. Let me tell you Something right now. This is 
twenty-one discussions I have had and I never challenged a man that ever 
I debated With in my life. This man wrote me a challenge, he Says, and I 
never noticed it. My father taught me never to kill arty game that wasn't 
worth sacking, and that is why I didn't nbtice it. Now 1 can beat you at 
anything- ybu go at. Now if you want to go into that go at it. The Mis- 
sionary Baptist and General Baptist, we have had these debates and never 
made anything but a gentlemanly debate, and ten debates with the Camp- 
belliteS and have never had a gentlemanly one. 

(Moderator Hines.) 1 deny that. 

(Elder Laslie.) What does your denial amount to? It amounts to as 
much as a little bob-tail puppy dog in high oats. I can beat both of you. 
Keep on popping off. You will hear the cannon roar if you keep on at it. 
'The General Baptist and Missionary Baptist met on discussions on things 
that are non-essential to membership in the great family of God. It isn't 
essential to Christianity Whether I believe in close communion or whether 
I do not. The whole World recognizes I am a child of God, except this mart. 
Let me Say to you that while this church unchurches every people, yet they 
will sit down to the table and commune with them. They will receive their 
baptism. In the name of God, how does that look? To commune with a 
people that are the children of the devil, that are on their way to hell, they 
have no Christ and no church; every time one of you communes with a 
General Baptist, or Methodist, or Presbyterian, you acknowledge their 
church-head, according to your own statement. Now eat it. Every time 
you receive baptism a§ performed by General Baptist because of remission 
of sins you condemn your own baptism and say it is no account. 

With regard to those flowers there, he says we put flowers on the 
graves of the dead. He has been dead four days and by this time stinketh 

152 



You could not get close enough to his grave for the stink to put the 
flowers on it. 



(Brother Wi.lis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear 
before you to make the closing speech in the forenoon. I shall follow the 
gentleman in his circuitous route. The first question I want to notice is 
this — I have a right to question him because he is in the affirmative. Now 
notice it, please. Where did he point out the origin of the General Baptist 
church? Name the book, chapter and the verse. I promised him when I 
took the negative in this proposition if he would point out the name General 
Baptist church in the entire Bible, and I gave him all the latitude he wants, 
the Old and the New Testaments — if he can point it out anywhere within 
the lids of the Bible I promised to become a member and pay him five 
dollars besides. Isn't that fair ? Has he pointed out to you its origin ? And 
that is the first thing he said he was going to do, to point out the origin 
of the Baptist church. I am still after you, Elder. When did the thing 
begin ? You have fixed it and said it was a nickname, yet why did you affirm 
in your proposition that "The General Baptist churches, one of which I, 
T. A* H. Laslie, am a member, are identical in origin, name doctrine and 
practice with the churches of the New Testament." If General Baptist is 
a nickname, why did you sign this proposition? 

(Elder Laslie.) To get to debate with you. 

(Brother Willis. Why are you over here, Elder? 

(Elder Laslie.) I am here to make people see the truth. 

(Brother Willis.) I say you are just simply fooled in 1,999 pounds in 
weighing what you said you weighed. He said he weighed a little over a 
ton. His audience knows about how heavy he is. Get on this proposition 
with your weight, Elder. You are talking about something else in this 
debate. You are on the negative side. Why didn't you talk about that 
while I was in the affirmative? 

Now he is putting in his time talking about Campbellites. I want to 
go to record as I promised, if he wouldn't find the name of his church on 
the inside I would find it on the outside. Here it is. It isn't in the book, 
but I can find it on the outside. David Benedict. I wonder if he would 
accept that witness. He discarded J. B. Jeter awhile ago. You said I was 
flying in the face of a scholar. I introduce J. B. Jeter as a witness. He is 
a Baptist, full-fledged. I didn't fly in the face of any man and call in question 
his veracity, and you can't impeach any witness I have introduced here. On 
page 304, "The first regularly organized Baptist church of which we possess 
any account is dated from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smith, 
who had been a clergyman in the Church of England. Here, then, according 
to their own historians, is the first Baptist church. They cannot find a 
reliable history written before the seventh century which says anything 
about a Baptist ehurch." 

He admitted himself in his speech that the first Baptist church originated 

153 



in 1607. I will reacf you a little more history. Dr. Armitage says', page 45G, 
"He did baptize himself when he cast aside his infant baptism. He believe^ 
that no man had a pure baptism or couid administer the same, not only be- 
cause of the corruption of baptism, as then practiced, but because of moral 
defection in all of the churches." 

Dr. Armitage says, "Dr„ Cook, iffi hi& 'Story of the Baptists/' page 89 r 
Says: 'Smith is regarded as the founder of the General Baptists- of England, 
\Vhich are Arminian in doctrine,, and calls it restricted in communion; while 
the Particular Baptists are, for the most part, Calvanistic in- doctrine and 
open in communion.' " 

In the dictionary of Baptist churches, by E. T. Hiscox, page 511, we 
have this: "The first regularly organized church among them, known as 
Such in Englalid, dates from 16CJ7, and was- formed in London by a Mr. Smith, 
previously a clergyman of the established church." 

This establishes the origin that it is too young to be a Church of Christ. 
There is the General Baptist church on the outside, and not ofi the inside of 
the Bible. You carihot fiffd any trace of it in the Word of God to save your 
life, and he defends the name and says it is a nickname. He goes down in 
defeat and we have the flowers ready to put on his grave. Whenever you 
think I have been dead for four days you are" mistaken, Elder. I am very 
much alive. You are the carcass. The Church of Christ is no more body 
Of your church than the Mormon church. The Church of Christ isn't in dis- 
pute today. Why do you Whip back in the negative? Are you not satisfied 
with negating the proposition for the past two days? You are back in the 
first two days now and you are an old experienced debater. Ybti don't know 
your place, Elder, and, as 1 affirmed on yesterday, you can't either lead or 
follow in discussion. "You cannot, and I want it to go on record. The book 
will show it wheif it is printed. 

He talks about his specific church name, the Church of Christ. I 
answered that yesterday. 1 told you that the name Church of Christ wasn't 
used as a specific name to the exclusion of all other titles. If that is what 
you mean by specific, fto, sir, it isn't used in that sense. The Divine institu- 
tion is called the Church of God, the Church of Christ; it is called a house* 
of God; it is called the family of God; it is called the kingdom of God. There 
isn't a one of these names used to the exclusion of all others, and at no time 
is it Called the General Baptist church. The General Baptist name isn't in 
the Bible and you haVe admitted it. Give me your hand on it. 

(Elder Laslie.) Don't be a fool, for God's sake. 

(Brother Willis.) You know what the Scriptures say about calling a 
fellow a fool? Anything he might say will not surprise me, for I am ex- 
pecting for any old thing to be said. He is tied hand and foot and he knows 
it. He can't rattle me. 

He says faith is both a gift of God and an act of man. He is like the 
Old darkey now. He is "catchen' 'em Comin' and goinV' There is one kind 
§£ faith a direct gift of God, and that is one of the nine miraculous gifts 

154 



which we nave enumerated in 1st Corinthians and 1st Peter. But there is 
another kind of faith, and Paul calls it the common faith in writing to Titus. 
'One is a miraculous faith, a direct gift from God, and the apostles possessed 
that miraculous faith and had power to perform miracles. He addressed 
'Timothy — who. had that faith? Timothy didn't. The apostle Paul, the one 
doing the writing, did possess it. Timothy couldn't perform miracks. Rom. 
10:17. He is easy prey. Talk ahout killing fellows and putting them in a 
:saek. I don't want anything easier than this, of meeting Elder Laslie, or 
any other elder in this country. 

You remember one of these questions, "Can you carry on the commis- 
sion without preaching baptism?" He said no. I would like to shake hands 
"with you on that. You cannot carry out the commission of the Lord Jesus 
'Christ without preaching baptism. And yet you say it is non-essential. A 
man can be saved without it, and you can preach a commission without 
preaching baptism. In your own statement you said in your Grub-Ax it 
means into the remission of sins. I read it out of the Grub-Ax. I will read 
it' again if he wants me to. I have three Baptist translations. I wrote to 
the Baptist Book Concern and asked them if they had any Baptist transla- 
tions strictly Baptistic and they said they did, and they said "for" means 
'"into." Laslie says "baptize" is for the remission of sins, and yet he turns 
around and says it isn't essential. You can see the predicament he is in. 
Here he says General Baptist church is a nickname, and still you can't get 
into it without being baptized, and still it is non-essential. He refers to 
Eph. 1:13. Now let us see what he says. If I am not mistaken he is trying 
to establish the faith a -one theory. The devil believed and trembled and he 
believed in faith alone. Paul is writ ng to the church at Ephesus, "In whom 
ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your 
salvation: in whom a" so after that ye believeth, ye were sealed with that 
holy Spirit of promise." That breaks his own neck, to use his expression. 
*'Ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom al^O 
after that ye believed." "When? When you heard the word of truth. 

(Elder Laslie.) Let me set you right. 

(Brother Willis.) You are the man that is wrong. I showed him that 
according to the apostle's statement faith comes by hearing and hearing by 
the word of God. You will answer in your own time. You do not believe 
in faith alone. Neither do I. We agreed on that proposition. Now don't 
try to prove salvation by faith alone. 

Now he says in Acts 2:36 that "to know assuredly" simply means to 
believe firmly. 

(Elder Laslie.) I didn't say that. I said it meant that, and more 
than that. 

(Brother Willis.) That is in my notes. He said it means more than 
faith. He says "to know assuredly" — don't interfere with me. 

(Elder Laslie.) You cannot misrepresent me. 

(Brother Willis.) You said "assuredly" meant to believe, and more, 

155 



too. Listen. Peter said to the Pentecostians, let all the house of Israel 
see this same Jesus whom your wicked hands have slain, was both Lord and 
Christ; and they cried out, men and brethren what shall we do to be saved? 
He said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Christ 
Jesus for the remission of sins," therefore, they believed firmly before they 
repented. You have established an order in Acts 2. The Elder says himself 
the first thing is believing, and then repentance, and then baptism. There 
is the order he has established, but he says you haven't received remission 
of sins until you are baptized into remission. Good-bye, General Baptist 
doctrine. I will be with you in the sixth trouble and I won't forsake you 
in the seventh, Elder. 

Then he turns around and says the jailer repented before he believed. 
Now you have got the thing in a mess. He has gone over to Acts 16 and 
says the jailer repented before he believed. 

(jElder Laslie.) I didn't say it. I don't care about your notes. 

(Brother Willis.) I put the question to him, "Did the jailer repent 
before he believed?" He said yes; and in Acts 2:36 he says "to know as- 
suredly means to believe firmly/' and we learn after they repented that they 
didn't receive remission of sins until after they were baptized, according to 
his Grub-Ax. I am in the affirmative now. I am following you and you are 
under obligations to bring harmony out of things that are confused, and 
there is confusion here. Now harmonize this statement. He states in Acts 
2, faith, repentance, and in Acts 16 he says the jailer repented before he 
believed. I deny it. Talk about misrepresenting, before, he says, that there 
is a God even, he receives knowledge of the fact that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God and Savior of men and before he has a knowledge of his own 
lost condition, and you can't prove that the Philippian jailer ever heard a 
word of the Lord before that time, and that is how he received that knowl- 
edge. Now he denied that statement. He said in the next statement that 
faith was a historical faith. How many kinds of faith are there, Elder? I 
read of but two kinds in the Bible; that there is a miraculous faith and a 
common faith. Paul says, in Eph. 4:5, there was one faith. The elder says 
there are three or four kinds. Let him name them. I asked him was he 
saved at faith, or repentance. Do you remember his answer? I asked him 
was he saved at faith, or repentance, and he said he was saved at the end 
of faith. According to your statement concerning the conversion of the 
Pentecostians in Acts 2 you are saved without repentance. The fact of the 
business is the Baptists teach you are saved at the beginning of faith, and 
not the end of faith, and you quote John 2:36 to prove it. Here he turns 
and quotes Peter 1 :9, and Peter plainly says we are saved at the end of faith. 
We received the salvation of our souls at the end of our faith. When does 
faith end? Does it end on this earth, Elder? Jot it down. I have a right 
to question you, and under the rules governing this discussion you ought to 
answer or make an effort. When does faith end? I will affirm w'thout con- 
tradiction that it doesn't end on this earth. He says we receive the salvation 

156 



of our souls at the end of faith. He has introduced the apostle Peter and 
I accept it. Now is he going to stay with it? He says repentance is the 
gift of God; also the act of the creature. Yes, God gives His will. He admits 
obedience. Repentance is a plain precept in that will and we must obey that 
precept in order to receive the forgiveness of our sins, for Jesus says, 
except ye repent ye shall likewise perish. 

He said he was exhorting a little. I don't think he can beat me from 
what he said about it the other evening. He said I was a good exhorter. 
You did very well, Elder. He says I have got Holy Ghost religion. What do 
you mean by that? You simply mean you have the religion of the Lord 
Jesus Christ as revealed by the Holy Spirit? I believe that the religion of 
the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed by the Holy Spirit through the Script ares. 
I believe that. In fact, we learn that the work of the Holy Spirit is meant 
as recorded in the 16th chapter of John, to reprove the world of sin. That 
is the mission of the Holy Spirit, and He is performing His work, but He 
isn't doing it directly. He is doing His work through instrumentality by 
and through the preaching of the gospel, and through no other way. He 
says T. D. Willis has nothing to do with the saving of souls. Do you know 
what the gospel is for? What are you running around over the country 
and preaching for if God doesn't save through instrumentality? Tell this 
audience why. You have stated in so many different sermons — you have 
preached a certain length of time. Why do you do that? If Willis and 
Lasley have nothing to do with the saving of souls, tell me why you preach. 
You are on Primitive Baptist ground, if you don't mind, and there may be 
one in this audience and he will snow you under. He said Willis didn't have 
anything to do with the soul. The third person has nothing to do with it. 
Read the commission as recorded in the 28th chapter of Matthew, 18th and 
19th verses. Jesus gave his commission before entering heaven, and He 
possessed all power in heaven and earth. He says, "Go ye, therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end cf 
the world." Why give this commission if the third person had nothing to 
do with the saving of souls? Recorded by Mark in the 16th chapter and 
15th and 16th verses, "He that believeth and is baptized shal lbe saved; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned." That is a great commission. Paul 
says, in Rom. 1:16, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every 
one that believeth. It must be preached and preached to every creature 
throughout the world. Now if Willis and Laslie had nothing to do with the 
saving of the soul, why in the name of high heaven don't you quit preaching ? 
You had better quit unless you preach the truth. Gal. 1:8, "But though we, 
or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which 
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." 

He says Willis accepted my position of the church. He is so badly 
rattled he don't know where he belongs. "Willis accepted my proposition." 

157 



You are not affirming that the Churches of Christ are scriptural. You can 
prove it. I stated the proof in the affirmative; Rom. 16:16, "The churches 
of Christ salute you." Why don't you point the name of your church out in 
the Bible? You know it isn't there, and that is why I am here opposing 
you in this discussion, and I am the kind of game you can't get in the sack, 
it makes no difference what your father told you. That isn't your position, 
sir. The Church of Christ isn't your position. You tried to deny it. He 
went down on his knees and prayed to me. Some fellow said to me, "Why 
don't you get down before Elder Laslie and pray to him?" I said he isn't 
the object of prayer. That wouldn't be a prayer of faith. We should pray 
to God and go to Him through the name of Jesus Christ. He is awfully 
careful when he has to be. His father told him not to kill game not worth 
putting in the sack. What are you over here for, Elder ? I will tell you what 
for. You were dragged over here or you wouldn't have come. He menfoned 
a proposition put in his hands two weeks ago from Canalah, Missouri. I 
didn't mention it. I didn't make any statement concerning that proposition. 
I asked you if you had ever debated this proposition and you said no. 

(Elder Laslie.) I said I got a proposition from you and you made the 
statement that you wrote my propositions once before, and I never paid 
any attention to that. You made that statement from the record here. 

(Brother Willis.) As far as that is concerned you can have your way 
about that. One of his friends was holding a meeting at Canalah, Missouri, 
and we sent a proposition to the gentleman and he says I can't debate, but 
I have a brother that can. Who is it? Elder Laslie. They were mailed to 
you, and whether you received them or not I don't know. But one thing 
certain, we never heard from you ,and they were similar propositions. He 
was afraid of them. He has admitted here in this discussion he has never 
debated these questions before. He will never debate them again. He will 
never attempt it. He has had so many debates with Baptists and Campbell- 
ites. I think that statement is very uncharitable, and I think you need to 
apologize. He said the Baptists were all gentlemen. 

(Elder Laslie.) I said gentlemanly discussions. 

(Brother Willis.) I said gentlemanly discussions. The more you quibble 
the more you get tied. He said these Campbellites were ungentlemanly fe 1 - 
lows he debated with. I want to say you never debated with a Campbellits 
in your life. They never existed. You have been called upon to produce 
the record and you can't do it. The institution don't exist. Suppose I would 
call him a Randallite, it would be uncharitable of me. if I were to call him 
by that name unthoughtedly. It would be an ungentlemanly act of me. I 
wouldn't call him the name General Baptist if it wasn't the proposition. I 
wouldn't do it. You say it is a nickname, but it is in the proposition and it 
is on record and your church is known as General Baptist. If that is a 
nickname, why don't you change it? You can wear any old name, you 
don't care. 

(Elder Laslie.) Not a bit. 

158 



(Brother W'illis.) No, he don't care, and I do. Speaking of Divine 
things we should use Divine names, and in speaking of human things we 
should use human names. Do you get the distinction? A man will turn 
aside from Divine names and take upon himself a human name in the indi- 
vidual sense, or take upon himself a human in the worthy sense he takes 
the glory to himself when he fails to give God the glory, to God and Jesus 
Christ, His Son, and makes the great mistake Moses made. He failed to 
give God the glory and honor that was due Him when he was commanded 
to assemble the Israelites before the rock and speak that abundance of 
water should rush forth. Moses assembled the people all right. Elder Laslie 
is assembling the people all right, but instead of obeying the command of 
God to speak to the rock he is smiting the rock twice, one for himself and 
one for his brother Aaron, and he failed to give God the glory. Listen to 
what the Lord God says. You failed to sanctify me in the eyes of the peo- 
ple. You shall not lead My people into the Promised Land. You had better 
take a lesson, Elder. 

(Moderator Hines.) Before we dismiss for the noon hour I would like 
to request again that while things are get-ting warmed up more and more 
as we pursue this discusion,, that the people refrain from discussing the 
question, and let the- debata-nts finish as they have started it. 

(Moderator Jones.) I want to. indorse the^ statement made by Brother 
Hines. I request that the people in general refrain from discussing the 
subject. When, the debate has closed it is still proper, and if you want to 
have a general discussion, all right. Roll up your sleeves and light in. 



(E'der Laslie.) Brethren, Moderators and Respected Audience: I am 
before you this afternoon to continue my argument on the proposition under 
consideration. You heard the proposition read this morning. "The General 
Baptist churches, one of which I, T. A. H. Laslie, am a member, are identical 
in origin, name, doctrine and practice with the churches of the New Testa- 
ment." The first thing I want to notice is some of these questions. If he is 
going to hang me up on the questions it is time he ought to do it. 

"Is conversion a miracle, or an act of moral suasion?" Conversion, 
regeneration, justification. Conversion means, literally, to turn. It is in- 
definite with regard to his meaning of conversion. By conversion evangelical 
churches mean change of heart or life. "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, 
he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are 
become new." The common term for that word is conversion. It is the 
work of the Holy Spirit. What part of man is converted, body, soul or 
spirit? "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things 
are passed away; behold, all things are become new." ISpirit does not matter 
as Brother Theodore Willis might have you believe at all. Matter affects 
the change of heart and life in baptism. We have the same mind we had 
before conversion. We have the same soul we had before conversion,* but 

159 



the faculties, the powers, the nature is changed. We are changed from 
nature to Christ; from a natural state to a spiritual one. 

"Can a man be saved who refuses to be baptized?" Yes, sir, 

"Is baptism a command of Christ?" Yes, sir. Now you see where the 
syllogism comes in, and he didn't have judgment enough to make it. Why 
didn't he ask how can a man be saved without obeying the command of God ? 
Why? Because he knew Where he was going. Baptism is for its own 
Special purpose. Communion is for its own special purpose. The sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper is an oral Command. "As oft as ye do this, do it in 
remembrance of me.'' Can anybody be saved and not obey the commands of 
God? Yoti will see the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is for the purpose 
of comrr Cmoratirtg the preparation of the body of Christ. Was it an ordi- 
nance of baptism? His supper represents the burial and resurrection of 
Christ. 

"Can any one ge^t into the Baptist Church without being baptized?" 
Yes, Sir. 

"Can any one get into the kingdom of heaven without it?" Yes, sir, 

"Was the General Baptist church established under the Jewish dispen- 
sation?" He acknowledged there was a theocratic church in the days of 
Abraham and under the personal reign of Christ, as I showed you in the 
Mount of Transfiguration, and I told you here was the doctrine Of the 
General Baptist church, and he admitted it in fourteen different places. 1 
told you that the General Baptist church was established complete when the 
last wo~d in Revelation was written. 

"When did the Jewish dispensation end?" In some respects the Jewish 
dispensation hasn't ended yet. The Jews are still under the law. The 
Jewish dispensation ended with the believers in Christ; with the Jewish Cry 
for Christ; when the Lord said, "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well 
pleased; hear ye Him." It passed from the Jewish dispensation under the 
personal reign of Christ, and when Christ became the end of the law for 
righteousness on Mount Calvary on the cross. And that was before the day 
of Pentecost. 

"What did the Christian dispensation begin?" There are two mean- 
ings to that. The Christian dispensation began with the personal reign of 
Christ, embracing the transition of the theocratic, Abrahamic church, and 
fulfilled the Jewish dispensation at Calvary. Christ said, I am not come to 
destroy the law, but to fulfill it. 

"Is the Christian dispensation the last dispensation?" We are under 
the Christian dispensation now, are we not? Ask some of these Seven Day 
Adventists what is coming after the Christian dispensation; I am not a 
prophet. 

"Was the New Testament in force before the death of Christ?" Yes. 

"Bid Christ become the head of the church before His ascension?" 
Yes, sir. 

"Was baptism administered in the name of Christ before His death?" 

160 



Was John's baptism, or any other baptism, without Divine authority? Is 
Christ Jesus Divine? He has reference to the formula. There he falls 
down. You see he is simply afraid to come out on his meaning; but I catch 
it. "Was baptism administered in the name of Christ (he means upon the 
name of Christ) before His death?" No. And He is still baptizing under 
John's baptism. "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he 
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to 
bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." "I baptize 
you in the name of the Father,," because the Father devised the plan; "In 
the name of the Son," because the Son executed the plan, and "In the name 
of the Holy Ghost," because the Holy Ghost applied the plan in cleansing the 
soul from sin. Brother Willis don't baptize with that design at all. He 
can't say to a man when he takes him in the water, the Holy Spirit placed 
the power of salvation in my hands, or authorized Willis to put you under 
the water. The Holy Spirit will do that. No, he don't even say that. 

"In whose name did John the Baptist baptize?" John baptized for the 
remission of sins. 

"Was repentance and remission of sins in the name of Christ preached 
before His death?" Repentance and remission of sins in the name of Christ 
was preached before His death. What was John here for? To prepare a 
people for the Lord. The brother is still preparing a people for the Lord. 
He might simply ask the question in another way, "Was Christ dead before 
he died?" Was the authority given to baptize before Christ gave it to the 
disciples ? Christ had given no authority to baptize before his death. Why ? 
Because He had not died and He had not executed the plan, and they were 
baptized in His name because He had executed the plan, and then they 
were baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit 
applied the plan. Brother Willis cannot use that formula. 

"When did Christ become King of Kings and Lord of Lords?" He did 
not begin; He always was. He had no beginning as King of Kings and 
Lord of Lords. 

"What apost'e first preached the death, burial and resurrection of 
Christ?" The first preaching was done by Christ Himself. What did He 
say? "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though 
he were dead, yet shall he live." Then what else did He say ? I must go 
up to Jerusalem and there be betrayed and fall into the hands of enemies, 
and be crucified and buried, and rise again on the third day. 

"Was he High Priest while on earth?" I have answered that half a 
dozen times and told you yes. 

"Is the Lord's Supper a church ordinance?" Yes, sir. 

"Was it put in the General Baptist church, and by whom?" Yes, sir, 
by Christ Himself, and taken up by the apostles, adn has been observed up 
to this day. 

Now then I want to notice Some other little things here that don't 
amount to anything, but I want to notice them. He said, "If you had 

161 



affinred that name as scriptural we would have denied it." I have showed 
you the identity of the doctrines, and whatsoever is scriptural is true, is it 
not? So much for that, Brother Willis, He says I didn't call in question 
the veracity of any witness. I piled them up on the stand. He said, "I 
don't believe it,' I deny it." He don't call in question then the Students' 
Encyclopedia; he don't call in question the Illustrated Book of Religions, 
the Illustrated Encyclopedia; his own history which he quoted the other 
day; he wont call in question all of the testimony that was piled up here 
on the stand this morning declaring what he is and where he came from. 
But he did it. Now he is about to go back on what he said. I asked him 
direct after he made his first speech, "Is the name Church of Christ a general 
term or specific term?" and he said it was a specific name. I challenged him 
to prove it, and it remains unproven today. I said that all of these names 
that he had here are appellations belonging to the Church of Christ in a 
general sense and embraced the whole family of God, and he says this 
morning he didn't say that. He says the Church of Christ is a Divine 
origin and is specific. Now if it is a general name applied to all of God's 
people, away goes the brother's position altogether. He was afraid to meet 
me in the name of high heavens. Everybody that believes that Laslie is 
afraid to meet any man On the living earth on the teachings of the General 
Baptist church otand on their head. I was dragged into this debate. Yes, I 
was dragged down here in an automobile. I was dragged down here in an 
automobi e. He had to force me into this discussion, and then he says I 
forced him to come into this debate thinking that I would catch him un- 
prepared. The men that came after me know what I said. I had four days 
to ireet you in this debate. I had four days to prepare to meet you in this 
debate. 

(Brother Willis.) You needed more time. 

(Elder Laslie.) God knows you need everything. These people can 
judge about those things. No, sir, there are some things too contemptible to 
pay any attention to, to charge Laslie with being afraid to meet Theodore 
Willis. There are some things I don't care to handle. I don't like to nurse 
a pole cat. 1 don't call him one. I don't like to nurse one of those things, 
and I don't like to skin them, either. 

Then again, with regard to the expression I used there. Do you know 
What the Bible says with regard to calling a man a fool? I have seen 
Smart men act a fool. I don't want him to act that before this audience, 
because it would make them think what he really is. Clowns in an audience 
act a fool because they are the only ones that can do it. He g*ot a compli- 
ment and he don't know it. Brother Willis, I can beat you at anything you 
Undertake. 

Now 1 want to pursue the line of thought that we were on. Brother 
Willis admitted there was a church under the Abrahamic covenant, under 
the Abrahamic dispensation; under the law back there, under the Divine 
administration of Christ on earth. So much for that. And he admitted 

162 



also that the ceremonial wash'ngs were in it, and that the passoVer was in 
It. He admitted my definition of the church; he admitted my definition with 
regard to origin; he admitted every definition that I gave from the begin - 
n"ng. Yet he turns around and misrepresents me and undertakes to force 
It on this people that I said that people are justified by faith on.y, when I 
made the clear statement that faith in Christ embraced repentance towards 
God, sorrow for sin, a turning away from sin, confession for sin; prayer for 
pardon, leading up to a justifying faith in Christ that puts us in a position 
whereby we are regenerated by the Spirit of the living God without baptism. 
Now I want you to remember that. 

Now I am going to say in my next statement that men under the gospel 
church and by the authority of Jesus Christ, and the apostles, and the New 
Testament, have always been justified, regenerated and saved on the ground 
of faith. He tells us we are justified by faith in one of his speeches, but 
not by faith alone. We are agreed on that. "The Lord is good, a strong- 
hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him." Nahum 
1:7. That those that trust in Him are saved; otherwise the scriptures are 
false. "But the just shall live by his faith." Hab. 2:4. "If from thence 
thou seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all 
thy heart and with all thy soul." Deut. 4:29. There finding the Lord de- 
pends on seeking Him with all the heart and all the soul; with absolute 
faith in Him. Let us look at Joel. "Turn ye even to me with all your 
heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: And rend 
your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for 
he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and re- 
penteth him of the evil." Joel 2:12-13. This is the doctrine of the Genera 1 
Baptist church and is practiced in this whole country, and has been preached 
and practiced ever since there has been a gospel preached on the face of 
the earth, identical with the doctrine of the Bible. "The time is fulfilled, 
and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.'" 
Mark 1:15. "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." Luke 7:50. "He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall 
be damned." He says that man is condemned for unbelief. He that be- 
lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life. He that believeth and is baptized 
of course will be saved. He that believeth and is baptized and observes the 
Lord's Supper shall be saved. He that obeys all of the commands will be 
saved. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he is saved. 
"As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of 
God, even to them that believe on his name." John 1:12. As many as 
received Him gave He them the right to become the sons of God. No man 
is a son of God that does not believe on the name of Jesus Christ. He 
cannot claim Him without believing on the name of Christ. Of course, the 
man that has the power to become the son of God, and is the son of God, 
and is baptized is saved, and observing the ordinance of baptism does not 
hinder him from being saved. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 

163 



ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth 
in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life. He that believeth on him is not con- 
demned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath 
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. He that be- 
lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son 
shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:14-15-16- 
18-36. Here we find salvation, and the condemnation plans. He that be- 
lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life; he that believeth not the Son shall 
not see life. "Hath" fo'lows "life" on the basis of his faith. "Hath" follows 
"life" on the basis of his exposition. "He that heareth my word, and be- 
lieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into 
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24. "He that 
cometh to me shall never hunger'; and he that believeth on me shall never 
thirst." John 6:36. "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth 
in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and 
believeth in me shall never die." John 11 :25-26. On the ground of faith 
are they justified, are they saved. "He believed in the Lord and he counted 
it to him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6. Rom. 4:3; therefore, the Lord 
saved by faith. "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent 
me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is 
passed from death unto life." "Therefore, being justified by fa'th, we have 
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have 
access by faith into his grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the 
glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations a 1 so; knowing 
that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, 
hope; and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad 
in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." What is it that 
makes man not ashamed? The word of God. What kind of man is it? 
2nd Cor. 5: IT; "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: 
old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." A new 
creature; a new heart will I give you. I will take the heart of stone; "And 
ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." Rom. 8:16; "The spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of GodG, 
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so 
be that we suffer with him." "For ye have not received the spirit of bond- 
age again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry Abba, Father." 

Is that Bible? Is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the 
Holy Ghost? Brother Willis, tell these people how you know you are a 
Christian; how you know you are saved. He that is born of God hath the 
witness in himself, and the Spirit beareth witness that he is a child of God. 
That apostle says, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, 
because we love the brethren." 

\ 
164 



1 want to notice further. 1 want to call attention to the fact that the 
next speech will be a summing up, and I want to call your attention to the 
statement made by Brother Willis when he attacks my definit'-On of "e's" in 
Acts 2:38. I will give you that in the next speech. We have justification 
by faith, adoption hy the Holy Spirit, the love of God shed abroad in our 
hearts. I have got about sixteen different arguments I want him to answer. 
I want him to answer these like a man and I want him to stop his boasting, 
his bigotry and sarcasm and answer these arguments and treat the subject 
fairly and squarely. It is all going to book. There are my arguments, 
fourteen of them. I don't know what he will do with those fourteen argu- 
ments. They stand admitted and have gone to the record as admitted and I 
want him to take these and answer them as a man. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gent'emen: I come 
again to reply to the gentleman's speech. I want to notice some th'ngs that 
he has said hefore this last speech. First, the General Baptist is a nick- 
name. Now I want to keep that before you people. He obligated himself 
when he began his affirmative to establish first, the orig'n of the General 
Baptist church. Has he done it? No, he has not. But I established it in 
England in 1607 from history. I did what I prom'sed him I would d^. He 
failed to find it in the Book of God and therefore we established it by history 
in England in 1607. Elder, is Zion England? The foundation of the Church 
of Christ was la : d in Zion and Zion is Jerusalem. We can't find any churches 
of the General Baptist in the Bible. We go to history and find it established 
in England, and he says they named it a nickname. He failed to find it on 
the inside and we found it on the outs' de of the Bible. Let us notice how he 
has crossed himself up. He said that the Penteccstians believed and re- 
pented; and he said the jailer repented and believed. 

(Elder Laslie.) I didn't say that, either. 

(Brother Willis.) The record will show. He says the General Baptist 
church is in process of building. That is what he says, and it wasn't com- 
pleted until the "Amen" of Revelation, and then he failed to point out the 
place where the thing was organized. Do you believe in apostolic succes- 
sion ? If you say you do not you have your book marked up and have been 
using it on somebody else that does teach it. You dare not take hold of that 
line. If you do I will take hold of your chain and there will not be enough 
links left to rattle when I get through. 

"Can a man be a General Baptist preacher and not a member of the 
General Baptist church?" The stenographer's notes shew that he said yes; 
he can be a General Baptist preacher and not be a member of the General 
Baptist church; but his answer written here on paper says yes; it refers to 
the local church. Why did you change? Again, "Can a man believe : nto 
Christ?" The stenographer's notes show, "Yes, sir," and his answer written 
on paper says, "Men believe in Christ." Why did you change, Elder? He 
first says you can believe into Christ, and he changes. You know you can't 

165 



beieve into anything. Why? Because faith isn't a transitory act. You 
can't believe into anything. The book says we believe unto Christ and we 
repent unto Christ and we baptize into Christ. Rom. 6. 

Zion. Where is it? I have been after him on that word Zion all the 
way through and he has never told us. Why hasn't he told us where Zion 
is? He is afraid, that is why. The prophet, Isa. 28:16, says, "Behold, I 
lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a 
sure foundation." The foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ was laid in 
Zion, and he comes in and says I accepted his definition. You accept my 
definition. I gave the definition of my proposition and he didn't call it in 
question, and I had to force you to give a definition of your propositon, and 
then you didn't give all the definition of your terms. 

"What part of man is converted, body, soul, or spirit?" If I understood 
him he said the spirit of man. I say the whole man is converted, the entire 
man is converted. He is turned face about. The body must be kept in sub- 
jection in order to live a Christian life. The Book teaches it. 

Then in answer to the question, "Can a man be saved who refuses to bs 
baptized?" In answer to the next question, "Is baptism a command of 
Christ?" He says yes. Then a man can be saved without obeying the 
commands of Christ. In his little Grub-Ax he says a man is baptized into 
the remission of sins. Can he be saved out of remission of sins? Eat your 
own words, Elder. You are bapfzed into the remission of sins. It is in 
your little Grub-Ax and it has gone to record; and now he says a man can 
be saved without baptism and be saved without remission of sins, according 
to your own statement. I asked if baptism is a command and you say yes, 
you can be saved without it and it was the commandment of Jesus Christ. 

"Can any one get into the Baptist church without being baptized?" 
He says "yes." Vote him in, and it has to be unanimous, too. One poor 
little fellow can jump up and hollow "no" and keep a poor soul out of the 
Baptist church as long as he lives. (He can close the door on him as long as 
he lives; you know it. The vote must be unan'mous. That is the teaching 
of your little creed. You deny it and I introduce it on you. You talk about 
closing the door of the Church of Christ against an individual and keep him 
out as long as you live. 1N0 wonder he says the thing is nicknamed. I 
would like to know what you baptize for. You have gone to record saying 
you are baptized into the remission of sins. Can you partake of the Lord's 
Supper in the Baptist church without baptism? You know you can't do it. 
You are not recognized as a Baptist in full fellowship until you are baptized. 
You dare not sit down to the Lord's table until you are bapfzed. You know 
it. I know what I am talking about. He says the Jews are under the law 
yet. Is the old Mosaic law in force? 

(Elder Laslie.) We think it is. 

(Brother Willis.) And the New Testament law is in force? 

(Elder Laslie.) Yes, sir. 

(Brother Willis.) Who ever heard of a man taking such issue as that? 

166 



(Elder Laslie.) You know the Jews received not the New Testament. 

(Brother Wlillis.) Talk about two covenants being in force at the same 
time. Eph. 2:14-15, Paul says this: Christ is our peace, who hath made 
both one, and hath broken down the middle wail of partition between us; 
having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments con- 
tained in ordinances; to make in himself of twain one new man. The Mosaic 
law was abolished in the death of Christ, and you have admitted it in this 
debate. You have said the fulness of the law was in Christ, and the steno- 
grapher's notes will show it. Paul says in the 3rd chapter of 2nd Cor., we 
are able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; 
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. You don't know which side 
of the cross you are on. You don't know whether you are under Moses or 
the Christ. 

"When did the Christian dispensation begin?'* You said it began on 
Caivary. You know it don't. The Christian dispensation began on Pente- 
cost and you know it as well as I do. 

"Is the Christian dispensation the last dispensation?'* He says it is as 
far as he knows. The Russellites say no, there is another one. I thought 
you would land into Russellism. Now John was speaking of this and he 
said, "Little children, it is the last time." Was the will of Christ enforced 
before the death of Christ? He says yes, that the will of Christ was en- 
forced before the death of Christ. Do you know what Paul says about that ? 
Paul says in Heb. 9:17, "For a testament is of force after men are dead: 
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." Read what 
he says about that. Find out from him. 

He says Brother Willis doesn't baptize in the name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit. Did you ever see him baptize anybody? You are doing 
some guessing here. I do baptize in the name, according to Matt. 28:19, 
sir. I have a right to defend myself, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ, 
and I am amply able to do both. He said John baptized upon the name of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

(Eider Laslie.) I didn't say it. 

(Brother Willis.) What did ycu say? I demand the truth. You can't 
find any formula that John used in baptizing. No man administered bap- 
tism into the name of the Father until after Jesus Christ went to heaven, 
after the New Testament went into effect, and on Pentecost. The High 
Priest on earth. He argued most of the time yesterday evening about the 
High Priest and one passage is all I need to quote, and that is Heb. 8:4. 
Paul said he should not be a priest here on earth. Christ put the supper in 
the Baptist church. I deny it. The supper was put in His own church, in 
His own kingdom. He says, my table is in my kingdom, not in the General 
Baptist church. Do you think Christ would put a supper into an institution 
wearing a nickname? You are up a gum stump, Elder. You have thrown 
down your proposition; you have obligated yourself in your proposition to 
prove that it was the same in name and practice. You have thrown down 

X67 



your proposition, and the book will show it, and these people see it. The 
Baptist brethren see you have thrown the thing down; he has turned it loose. 
He has something to say. I said if he would affirm that the Churches of 
Christ were identical there wou'd have been no discussion. No, indeed, there 
Wouldn't, because the Bible teaches it and you know it as well as I dtf. Yotf. 
nave admitted it is a nickname. Go to Lone Star and rub out the name on 
your church record. 

The Church of Christ, a specific name. I said it wasn't a Specific name' 
£0 the exclrsiori 6f ail Other names, if that is what you mean by the word' 
specific. No, sir. flow many Stood oh their heads when he made the prop- 
6sitiont Did you see anybody stand on his head that believed him? 

Wasn't afraid to meet anybody in debate. Nobody said he wag by stand- 
ing oh their heads, at least. I don't like to nurse a pole cat. Isn't that a 
shame for a statement like that to go into a book? 1 am ashamed of you, 
Elder. I am ashamed of you. And you Said you wasn't going to use any 
slang. What do you call tbat? Do you call that slang"? Do you mean' to 
call me a pole cat*? 

(Elder Laslie.) No, sir. 

(Brother Willis.) Shame" oh you. Shaft! e on you. If there is anything' 
a pole cat, that smells like a pole eat, m this debate it is the proposition you- 
are affirming. He said he gave me a compliment by cat irig me a fdol. That 
is a short route to compiment a man, yet you said you complimented me 
and I don't know it. You cari call it a compl'ment if you want to. 

He says, "I can beat you at anything." Yes, you can beat me acting a 
fool. I will admit that, He came out with a long list of scriptures. You 
can't get s6 fast but what I can keep up" with you, Elder. Justified on the 
ground of faith. Did you ever see a Christian call that in question? You 
made a long argument and perspired freely trying to prove something her" 
that nobody denies. I believe I was justified on the ground of faith, and I 
don't beiieve we are justified on faith alorte, and you say you don't believe 
:'t: so we are agreed on that. You have wasted your ammunition here*, 
Mark 16:16; "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." He says 
that is true. He talks like part of Mark is in doubt. He says, "I am going 
to agree with Brother Willis b3c2use he believes it." 'Salvation follows bap- 
tism and it is all true, and that is in perfect harmony with the Blder'*g 
Gruo-Ax where be says baptize "into'' the remission of sins. In a few days 
he iS going to enter another debate and I am going to be at the "skinning." 
Here is something he Said, he tbat obeyed all the Commandments will be 
saved. I believe that as firmly as you or any other man. You have done 
gone to record as Saying you can be saved without baptism, and you have 
gone to record as saying baptism is a command. 

(Elder Laslie.) tab. 

(Brother Willis.) Tab. Listen. Here is another Statement. He says 
he that believeth hath a right to become a Son of God. I believe that, too 1 ; 
indeed, and so we become a son of God on the ground of faith. But he isn't 

16$ 



the son of God the moment he believes. You have gone to record as saying 
salvation is at the end of faith, and not the beginning. 

Now that answers all the Scriptures here in a lump. I do not deny 
them. He says in his next speech, "I am going to sum up. Are you going 
to tell these General Baptists where that General Baptist church began? 
You haven't done it yet. Are you going to point out the origin of the 
thing? You have thrown down the name; you haven't had much to say 
about doctrine. What about the practice? You are blank. You are the 
poorest excuse of any man I have ever met in debate, big, little, old or 
young. I knew you were handicapped when you came here. I knew you 
were tied hand and foot and you knew it, when you went into this point: 
You will never debate this proposition any more, sure. 

You remember, I asked him to name the essential things that separated 
him from other Baptists. He said the things that separated them were 
non-essential. Let's see about it. It once taught "once in grace always in 
grace," but they have repudiated that now. Here is a little creed, and he is 
one of the apostles that devised the thing. He is one of the twelve men 
that devised this thing. I told him once, and I will tell him again, this thing 
will look as big as a mountain to you in the judgment. You have 'turned 
aside from the Word of God. You failed to give God the honor and glory 
that is due Him. "We believe that he that shall endure to the end shall be 
saved." That much is sure, and "He that endureth to the end shall l)e 
saved." Matt. 10:22. I will accept the truth, I don't care where I find it, 
but I am opposing error. Here is a NOTE. "This article originally was— 
'That the Saints will finaUy preserve through grace to glory.' But in 1854 
it was changed to the present form." Is that an essential then, or non-t 
essential? "He has accused me with debating with Missionary Baptists." I 
am asking you and you are under obligations to answer. I am asking you 
if this is essential for a doctrine, "once in grace always in grace," I a'm 
asking you if this is essential? You have gone to record as saying that 
non-essentials separate you. You have gone to record, sir. Here is some- 
thing else on page 46. I will read from his little creed now an ordinance. 
"Baptism — Immersion is held as an essential element of this ordinance, that 
being the meaning of the word, and was also the practice of the primitive 
church. The Lord's Supper — The Lord's Table is believed to belong equally 
to all of the Lord's children, and is so administered to all accepted Chris- 
tians who present themselves." Can you eat at the Missionary Baptist 
table? Is that essential? You have gone to record as saying that non- 
essentials separate you people. He said back yonder that he wouldn't come 
out and take a stand on it, that the kingdom before the death of Christ was 
a General Baptist church, and he dare not come out and take a stand on it. 
Is kingdom Baptist church? Let us see. Luke 16:16. "The law and the 
prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, 
and every man presseth into it." It was a Baptist church? Luke 17:20; 
"And when he was demanding of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God 

169 



should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not 
with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, 
the kingdom of God is within you." Is that the Baptist church? Mark 
15:43; "Joseph of Armathaea, an honorable counsellor, which also waited 
for the kingdom of God, carr.e, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the 
body of Jesus." Is that the General Baptist church? Luke 11:20; "But if I 
with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom .of God is come 
upon you." Luke. 19:11; "And as they heard these things, he added and 
spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they 
thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." Is that the 
Baptist church? He has never located the thing. Matt. 11:11; 'Verily, I 
say into you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a 
greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the king- 
dom of heaven is greater than he." If that was the Baptist churchy John 
didn't know it. "And from the days of John the Baptist until now tihe 
k nrdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." 
Good bye, Baptist church. Come on and tell us where this thing originated. 
We have found it on the outside of the Bible and you are obligated to find it 
in the New Testament. Tell us where this thing originated. I am glad to 
say that I represent a church of the New Testament. I can call it by a 
name. I can point out in the New Testament its origin and name, its teach- 
ings its practice, and I have proven beyond a question of a doubt in the two 
previous days of this discussion as representing churches of the New Testa- 
ment, that they were identically the same institution, wearing the sante 
nan-e and teaching the same doctrine and we practice the same identical 
things. So he adnrts the definition to be correct. Now the laboring car is 
in his hands and two days have a' most gone, his time is almost up and he 
ob^gated himself in the very first speech that he would point out the origin 
of the General Baptist church on that point, its name, its teachings and its 
practice, and now he is going to sum up. If there is a General Baptist in 
this audience that can point out the p'ace where it reads General Baptist 
church I will become a member of that church and defend it with all my 
might, but unt'l then I am going to oppose it until the day of my death. 
Brethren, if you are going to take the Bible, take it. If you are going /to 
conform to the Bible, conform to it. iDon't turn aside and devise a creed, a 
human system to conform to it. I ask you in Jesus, name to turn away 
from this human creed and turn to the Divine creed, the New Testament. 
Live a faithful member until death and then you have the assurance of 
salvation in the sweet bye and bye. 

May the God of heaven bless these people and help them in a careful 
search of His Hoy Word, that you may learn the truth; that you may find 
it and weigh it and that you may be made free indeed. Jesus Christ says 
the truth will make you free. I beg of you to accept it and be saved, be 
made happy in the Savior's love. The Word of God is infallible; the New 
Testament is infallible in faith and practice. That law is perfect, yet James 

170 



in his letter, 1st chapter, 25th verse, he says, "The law of the Lord is perfect 
— converting the soul." It is a perfect law of liberty. It will make you 
free from sin. It is the basis of faith and hope of heaven and immortal 
gory, and the human that lives under submission to its authority wi 1 surely 
receive a crown. Jesus Christ in Matt. 7 says build on the eternal rock, but 
the man who refuses to obey the New Testament law, he builds on the sand 
and is a foolish man. One is a wise man and the other a fol'sh m n. 
Where do you stand? Are you obeying the will cf the Lord Jesus Christ? 
If so you are a wise ran. If you are not obeying the will of the Lord Jesus 
Christ you are foolish. I beg of you to step and think; I beg of you ii 
Jesus' name to exerc'se your reascn today and see where you are and where 
you stand and what you represent. May God help us to examine ourselves 
and see whether or not we are in the faith. This is the injunction to each 
and every one, to look into his own heart and into his own life a^d comp^rs 
them with the Divine record and see whether or not we are l'ving in con- 
formity to the same. May the Lord bless you. I thank you. 



(Elder Las ie.) Brethren, Moderators, and Friends: I am b?fore v^u 
aga^n to close my part of this discussion, and I must say that this is twenty- 
one discussions that I have had and I have never been in a d'scussion wh°ra 
the attention has been as good as this. Now just give us your attention a 
little while longer and we will soon be done. 

The first thing I want to do is to thank Brother Willis for his compli- 
ment. He has acknowledged that I am a smarter man than he is. It is the 
first man I ever had to acknowledge that in my life. Do you remember 
what I said about that cat? Some things I don't Ike to do, and one was to 
n rse a polecat. I didn't say that he was one. He isn't one. He said I 
corld beat hm acting a fool. Do you remember what I sa : d about that? I 
said that it took a smart man to act a fool; that the clown was the smartest 
man about a circus because he acted a fool, and all I wanted to do ws to 
keep the people from thinking that he was one. It takes a smart man to 
act a fool. He says I can beat him acting a fool. Therefore, I am a smarter 
man than he is. 

Friends, there is one thing I want to notice before we go any further, 
and that is this little book. It is an eyesore to this brother. If I were to 
ask you people how many of you had ever examined this book, the Doctrines 
and Usages of General Baptists, you would be surprised to find how few of 
Brother Wlillis' people have ever seen or examined it. Do you know wh^t 
this book is? This book has for its foundation here — in other words, this 
bock is a conation of what we believe of scriptures, taken with reference to 
certain doctrines, and in this coFation I have 198 passages of God's Word 
written down there. Brother Will's says it will lay h~avy on Laslie's shoul- 
ders in the day of judgment. If God Almighty proposes to condemn me 
because I believe 198 passages of God's Word I am willing to stand the 
condemnation. There is what it proves and Brother Willis has never 

171 



attempted to deny one single article in that book; one single article of faith 
in that book. He has never denied it. Now I want to introduce, and I will 
■use this instead of summing up t "We believe the Scriptures are the in- 
fallible Word of God, and the only safe rule of faith and practice." Does 
Brother Willis believe that? It is supported by the Scriptures, laid down' 
there justifying it, six of them. Then again, "There is but one living and 
true God, and in the Godhead or Divine Essence, Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost." Does Brother Willis believe that? We have given eleven passages 
of Scripture to prove that doctrine. Again, "(The Attributes usually 
ascribed to God are such as that he is a spirit, self -existent, eternal, 
immutable, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, just, independent, good, 
wise, holy, and merciful, the creator, preserver, and governor of the uni- 
verse, the redeemer, savior, sanctifier, and judge of man, and the only 
proper object of worship.)" Here we have eight passages of Scripture 
given in one place and ten in another right following "Works of God are 
ascribed to the Spirit such as creation, inspiration, giving of life, sanctifica- 
tion, etc." and the "Acts that are in one place ascribed to God, in another 
are ascribed to the Holy Spirit to prove their unity, and twenty-seven 
passages of Scripture; in another place twenty-four passages on the same 
thing. These passages have gone to record. Again, with regard to sin, 
"That we are fallen and depraved creatures, and cannot extr'cate ourselves 
from our fallen situation by any ability we possess by nature." I wonder if 
Brother Willis believes or can admit he can save himself. Then we have 
fifteen passages of Scripture, which we consider enough to prove that 
doctrine and where we believe that doctrine is taught in the Bible. Then 
again, "That Salvation, Regeneration, Sanctificat : on, Justification, and Re- 
demption, are by the Life, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Intercession 
of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." We have sixteen passages of Scrip- 
ture given on that page; twenty -five on another page, forty-one passages of 
Scripture for that. Does Brother Wjillis believe that doctrine? Does he 
believe that salvation, regeneration, sanctification, justification, and redemp- 
tion, are by the life, death, resurrection, ascension and intercession of our 
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? If he doesn't believe that, will he say so? 
This is sustained by forty-one passages of Scripture. "We believe that he 
that shall endure to the end shall be saved." He believes that, too. "That 
the joys of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked shall be eternal." 
He believes that. There we have cited eight passages of Scripture. Brother 
Willis believes that. "We believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are 
Ordinances of Jesus Christ appointed in the church, and none but true be- 
lievers are subjects and the only proper mode of Baptism is immersion." 
Brother Willis does not believe baptism is an ordinance in the church. I 
have tried to get him in his proposition to place it somewhere. I asked him, 
"Is baptism in the church or out of the church, or the door into the church ? " 
and up to this good hour he hasn't placed it anywhere. I know, but I wanted 
that from his own mouth that baptism is out of the church, according to his 

172 



own position, anl that there is no sanation in nis church, according to his 
position. 

"The Lord's Day. We believe in the sanctity of the first day of the 
week — or Lord's Day — and it ought to be observed in the public or private 
"worship of God, and on it we should abstain from our worldly concerns, 
except in cases of necessity or mercy." Sustained by eight passages of 
Scripture. I wonder if Brother Willis observes any other day but the Lord's 
Day. I have showed you that the church began away back yonder with 
f God's covenant with the father. I showed you that it passed from under 
the prophetic dispensation; I showed you that it passed from there unto the 
Mosaic dispensation; from there unto the dispensation of Jesus Christ; I 
showed you all of this, and I told you in the beginning that the church was 
not built in a day, but passed through the entire Old and New Testaments, 
from the giving of the first covenant down to the "Amen" in Revelation, and 
we find it completely established with the law and the gospel. 

Now with regard to the Jewish covenant and the Christian dispensation. 
See how he garbed me a moment ago? See how he misrepresented me 
with regard to the end of the Jewish dispensation? I called his attention 
that he was indefinite in these questions. I gave two meanings, that with 
the Jews the law isn't yet ended, because they haven't observed it; they 
observed the Mosaic law; with them it hasn't ended, notwithstanding, with 
regard to the Church of God the law passed out at the death of Christ, the 
law was fulfilled. Now the next thought is that Jesus Christ was the end 
of the law for righteousness. I told you plainly as I could speak that the 
law was fulfilled at the cross but the Jews rejected the law. Therefore, 
they won't observe the law. The Jews rejecting it, they still observe it, 
still obey it and they are thus bound by the law, because they rej'ect the 
gospel, reject the New Testament — and you can't make a Jew any madder 
today than to hold up Christ crucified to him, and Brother Willis knows it. 
Is the law of sin still in the world? Here are men that reject the offering 
of Christ as a sacrifice. They won't repent of their sins; they won't come to 
God and be saved on the terms of the gospel. Ahe they not yet under the 
law of sin? We all know as long as we are servants of sin we are under 
sin. As long as we are servants of Moses we are under Moses; as long as 
we are a servant of a master we are under that master. The Jews are under 
that law. You can't make a man be a Christian if he wants to be under sin 
You can't make a Jew be a Christian if he wants to remain under the law. 
He is going to remain there. 

Now I want you to notice. He is harping with regard to what I said 
there; that is too little to notice, about son^e things. I have made the state- 
ment time and again here relative to the doctrines of the church, the estab- 
lishment of the church, and the people know it, and I have said this to the 
Baptists all the way along. Let us read this scrpture here just a minute. 
He is asking about Jesus Christ, was Jes^s Christ a Baptist? I answered, 
yes. Then do you remember what a hullaba^o he raised over that? "When 

173 



therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and 
baptized more d'sciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but 
his disciples.) He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee." His dis- 
ciples baptized all the way along by His authority just like Brother Willis 
baptizes by His authority. John 4:2. 

Then again the next thing I want to notice here is relative to this little 
Grub-Ax. This is an eye-sore to the brother. "Repent and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. In 
order for us to understand the meaning of th*s, as well as all other passages 
of like nature, it is necessary for us to learn what was God's plan of saving 
men, and the nature of the preaching of Christ and His apostles on this 
subject. All Biblical interpretation must be in harmony with God's plan. 
And as one truth cannot contrad'ct another truth, so the scriptures being 
true, one scripture cannot contradict another scripture; then Acts 2:38 must 
be in harmony with God's plan, and cannot contradict any other scripture." 
Brother Willis wasn't at that debate as wel 1 as I remember. Here is the 
argument I made, my definition of those ter<rs. 

"Then what is God's plan for saving men? In other words, what are 
the conditions upon which God proposes to save men? Let the BnVe say." 
Now I have given nineteen passages of scripture here showing the plan upon 
which God desires to save men. First, 

"He believed in the Lord and then he counted it to him for righteous- 
ness." Gen. 15:6. 

"Let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice; let them ever shout 
for joy, because thou defendest them." Psal. 5:14. 

"He that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about." Psal. 
32:10. 

"0, taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man that trusteth 
in him." Psal. 34:8. 

"Blessed is the man that maketh the Lord his trust." Psal. 40. 

"They that trust in the Lord sha'l be as Mount Zion which cannot be 
removed, but abideth forever." Psal. 125:1. 

"Trust in the Lord w'th all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own 
understanding." Prov. 3:5. 

"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee 
because he trusteth in thee." Isa. 26:3. 

"Thy faith hath made thee whole." Matt. 9:22. 

"Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace." Luke 7:50. 

"As many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of 
God, even to them that believe on his name." John 1:12. 

"That whosoever bel'eveth en him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life.'* John 3:15-16. 

"He that believeth on him is not condemned." John 3:18. 

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." John 3:36. 

174 



"He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on 
me sha 1 never thirst." John 6:35. 

"I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me though he 
were dead yet shall he live." John 11:25. 

/'Whosoever l'veth and believeth in me shall never die." John 11:26. 

"These are written that he might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the 
Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 
20:31. 

"Through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission 
of sins." Acts 10:43. 

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house." Acts 16:31. 

A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of 
Jesus Christ, even we have be ieved in Jesus Christ that we m'ght be justi- 
fied by the faith of Christ." Gal. 2:16 And so on clear on through twenty 
or thrty continuous passages of scripture on this line proving we are jus- 
tified by faith. 

"Well, does Acts 2:38 harmonize with His plan? Let us see. First, 
Peter preached the gcspel unto them; they heard it. Second, 'They were 
picked in their hearts, were convicted. Third, they were then penitents, 
asking, 'What shall we do?' Fourth, Peter instructed them, verse 38. Now 
that they believed that Jesus is the Christ is certain, because they were 
pricked in their hearts; but that this is not enough before baptism is clear, 
for Peter commands repentance before baptism, in verse 38. So then it is 
evident that the meaning of this passage depends on the purpose for which 
baptism is commanded in it and this in turn depends on the meaning of the 
proposition "eis," here translated "for," which is a bad translation, to say the 
least; out we will accept it as it is translated in the common version and even 
then we will be ab e to show that there need be no trouble in harmonizing 
the passage with God's plan as revealed in His word. In the Encyclopedic 
Dictionary, Vol. 2, pages 2158-9, we have the follow'ng definitions for the 
return for;' 4. 'Because of;' 5. 'By reason of;' 6. 'With respect to;' 7. 'With 
regard to.' Take any of these meanings (and they are the first meaning 
given to the word) and apply it to Acts 2:38 and you will have the apostle's 
word 'for:' 1. 'In the presence or sight of 1 ;' 2. 'In return for;' 3. 'As a 
meaning exactly and in harmony with the teachings of the Bible on th's 
subject as follows: 1. 'Be baptized for (in the presence of) remission;' 
2. 'Be baptized in return for remission;' 3. 'Be baptized as a return for 
remission;' 4. 'Be bapt'zed because of remission;' 5. 'Be baptized by reason 
of remission;' 6. 'Be baptized with respect to remission;' 7. 'Be baptized 
with regard to remission.' In each instance it is seen that baptism refers 
to a work done. That work is regeneration. For just as those who truly 
repent, truly believe and trust in the Lord, so in harmony with the fore- 
going passages those who truiy believe in Jesus are justified, forgiven, re- 
generated. But again, the expression/In order to,' when applied to Acts 

175 



2:38, destroys the meaning of the general tenor of God's word* regarding' 
the plan of salvation, therefore, it is not admissible. But some one will say, 
does not the word 'for' mean 'in order to?' I answer yes. The Encyclopedic 
Dictionary gives it as its 23rd meaning. Now the question isr Which is more- 
nearly right, that meaning which when taken with all of God's word makes 
complete sense and harmony with God's word, or a meaning far fetched and 
involving contradiction in God's Word? 

"Then again, the primary meaning of the word 'eis/ according to the* 
Standard Greek authors Such as Donnegan, Liddell and Scott, Goodwin, 
Bullion, Hadley and Al'en, and in fact the gerat bulk of the scholars of the 
world, is never 'for/ hut 'into/ 'to/ Which wheh viewed in the light of reasort 
and scripture are in perfect harmony with the Bible. 

We will now give the" Word its ordinary meaning, applying it to the 
Scriptures. Ifou ftiay wonder What is the gain. Bead Matt. 3:11, 'I indeed 
baptize you with water into repentance eis metanoiafi. We ask does eis' 
mean ift Order to in this passage? If so, baptism was for the purpose of 
producing repentance, Which even the Campbeliites will hardly admit. It 
then can Only hieah a formal declaration of their repentance. They had been 
commanded to repent, to bring forth fruits meet for repentance; they did so, 
and were baptized with reference to that fact into a public confession of 
repentance. 

"Again, Matt. 28: 13, ''Go teach a 1 ! nations, baptizing them "eis*' (into) 
the name of the Father, Sori and Holy Ghost/ In this eis most Certainly 
cannot mean 'in order to.' Yet, according to our brothers, this is what it 
must mean here if it means that in Acts 2:38. ISTo, they Were baptized into 
a public profession of tbeir faith in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with 
reference to tbe great work wrought within thent. 'In the name of the 
Father/ bedause the Father devised the plan of salvation; 'In the name of 
the Soft,' because the Son executed the plan; 'In the name of the Holy Ghost/ 
because the lloly Ghost hatb applied the plan in cleansing the soul from sin. 

"Again, 1st Cor. 1:13-15, 'Were ye baptized "eis" (into) the name of 
Paul?' 'Lest any should Say that I had baptized "eis" (into) ftl'ne ow-rt 
name.' NoW We ask, caii we even substitute for in this passage? Every 
one who tries it will answer 'No/ but 'with respect to/ 'with reference to/ 
make good sense. So theri to be baptized in the name of Paul simply means 
that they were here being reproved for their party spirit, and Paul was 
showing them that they were baptized into a public profession of faith in 
Christ, and were under obedience to no one else; that their baptism referred 
to their Salvation by Christ aloiie. 

"Again, once more, 'And were all baptized eis (into) Moses.' Here we 
have the same construction as in Acts 2:38. Now fead, 'In order to Moses/ 
'In order to remission/ 'For MoSes/ 'For remission/ You will now see that 
such a construction Wouid be absurd and meaningless. Then we can only 
understand that as they were at last delivered from bondage they symbolized 
this by being baptized. So they Were baptized into an open profession of 

176 



faith; they were baptized eis (into) Moses, into a profession of faith in and 
obedience to him as law giver. Not in order to something to be done as a 
result of baptism, but with reference to or because of something already 
done. So with Acts 2:38. To be baptized eis (into) remission of sins can only 
mean that remiss. on of sins comes only by repentance towards God and 
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and baptism that act by which we declare 
our faith in Christ Jesus." 

There is the argument. There is what my brother left out, what he 
ought to have placed before this people in justice to my definition. Now 
then, I made the statement with regard to the church, this brother has re- 
ceived it line upon line, precept upon precept, stone upon stone, and he has 
not denied one single, solitary thing. I do not care if the apostle was on 
this rock, we have nearly two hundred passages of God's Word in there 
sustaining what we believe. Let him tear these passages of God's Word 
down. They stand unassailed, uncontradicted; they stand accepted by him. 
He says I believe it as strong as you do. I accept your definition; I 
accept this and that, and he has accepted it line upon line, precept upon 
precept, stone upon stone, repentance towards God, faith towards Jesus 
Christ, and what else did you hear him say? Did you hear him say the 
whole man was converted? Yes, he said it; the whole man was converted. 
Tell us how water applied to the body cleanses the soul. That is the point 
at issue. 

Now, with regard to the practices of the church. Every pastor, every 
elder, every deacon, every office in the church of Jesus Christ, the General 
Baptist church, finds its counterpart in the New Testament. Elders, deacons, 
presbyteries all are in the church of the Living God, and all are in the General 
Baptist church. Where the difference comes in he did not tell us what the 
office of an elder was. The Bible plainly declares it, and it is known that 
the leadership of our church is the minister of the church. You will find in 
the Acts of the Apostles that seven consecrated men were chosen and given 
charge of the company. Relative to women preaching and relative to being 
out of church, and calling a sister a Baptist — you laid down your history. 
Are you a Baptist? Do you baptize? According to your definition you are 
a Baptist. Is it unscriptural to say that your sisters are Baptists? They 
believe the same thing and practice the same thing you do. Are they 
Baptists ? 

Now with regard to singing, the gentleman did not tell us anything 
about vocal music or Sunday schools. He used to have a good Sunday school 
in this church. Where is it? Who put it out? The General Baptist people 
believe it is the duty of every one to search the Scriptures and train up a 
child in the way it should go and when he gets old he won't depart from it. 
I don't believe in turning my children out like wild pigeons to wander where- 
ever they want to go on Sunday. Teach them the ways of the I^ord, ijhe 
word of the Living God. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 
It is good to hold the respect of God in the minds of your children. It is 

177 



good to train a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It is better 
to do that than to turn them out on the creek bank or on the baseball ground 
on Sunday, or wallowing in the creek and shooting craps. Which do you 
think is the best? It is better to remember the Sabbath day in the study 
of God's Word, or place God's Word in the hands of the children and teach 
them to regard His Holy Word in the church, or is it better to turn them 
loose to violate His holy day? I leave it with you, if that man has the 
audacity to stand here and say it is better to condemn the Sabbath school 
and condemn even the instrument. Praise Him with a psaltry and harp. 
Give me the companionship of David rather than the companionship of 
wo ves. There is only one place this brother can ever go where he will not 
find music. John said, "I heard the voice of harpers harping on their 
harps." Was this in heaven ? 

The church under the new dispensation is the anti-type of the old. It is 
placed under the personal reign of Christ and under the reign of the gospel 
and as it grows and develops the Gentiles taken in and the church is com- 
plete, Jew and Gentile united under the New Testament covenant; He has 
announced Himself and declared Himself as coming; His covenant stands 
forever and a day, and as such will stand forever. 



(Brother Willis.) Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I rise 
to close this discussion and I shall fo low the gentleman in his meanderings. 
In his first statement he says I acknowledged, or he acknowledged, I was 
smarter than him; he thought I could beat him acting a fool. Elder, you 
are mistaken. It doesn't take a smart man to act a fool, not by any means. 

What about this little yellow-back creed? He says he hasn't attempted 
to deny one article. What is the matter with you? I deny hereditary 
total depravity. 

(Elder Laslie.) We don't teach it; it isn't there. 

(Brother Willis.) Page 21, and they give the Scriptures to prove it. 

(E der Laslie.) Read that article of Faith. 

(Brother Willis.) "We are fallen and depraved creatures, etc." 

(Elder Laslie.) Do you believe that? 

(Brother Willis.) That teaches total depravity. What else do they 
teach in here? "The officers of the church are: First, a moderator; second, 
a clerk; third, a treasurer; fourth, a pastor; fifth, deacons; sixth, such 
committees as the church shall determine." Do you find such officers in the 
New Testament and in tfee New Testament church? Can he point out a 
moderator? No, he knows he can't do it. I don't accept your teaching as 
we find it here on page 45; that baptism is an ordinance in the church. No, 
indeed, I don't believe it, and on the same page, some of them teach feet- 
washing. I don't believe that. Some of them don't accept it. On page 48, 
article 10: "All business, except the reception of members, is decided by 
a majority vote. Reception of members should be unanimous." There is 
no authority for voting members into the Church of Jesus Christ. He can 

178 



vote them into the Baptist church, but that is a human institution and Elder 
Laslie is one of its pillars. On page 49, article 13: "The door of the church 
may be opened at any regular service, by the paster, for the reception of 
members. You can open the door of the Genera Baptist church, but not the 
Church of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I do not believe that 
article. So there are quite a namber of articles in the creed I don't believe. 
And he says another thing he dent believe. He says he don't believe a man 
can save himself. What does the Book say? Acts 2:40, Peter says, "Save 
thyself from this untoward generation. That is what the Book says about 
it and I believe the Book. I do not believe a man can save himse f inde- 
pendent of God and Chrst and the Holy Spirit, but a man can save himself 
by laying hold of the means in his way, and you believe it as well as I. 

He says the Baptist church is supp r sed to begin back under the Jewish 
law. He labored two days to point out the origin of the General Baptist 
church. Did he po'nt it out? if there is a man heard him place his finger 
on it I don't know it. We pointed out its origin on the outside, in England. 
And he had something to say about the Sunday school. Robert Raikes is 
the father of it in England and there is no trace of it in the Bible; a human 
institution. 

He says I garbled him. Let rs see about hi™ on the question of the 
law, and on the question of his contradiction of faith and repentance. Here 
is the question and the answer: "Had the jailer repented when he was told 
to believe? Acts 16:31." He says, yes, sir. Therefore, he has repentance 
before faith in Acts 16:31. "Is to know assuredly, Acts 2:36, to believe 
firmly?" and he says yes, it means that, and it means more. It doesn't 
make any difference how much more it means, he has more than repentance 
in Acts 2:36. Here are the questions and here are the answers. What did 
he say about the law, and when did the Jewish dispensation end? He says 
it hasn't ended yet in some respects. He is a little uneasy about that. He 
d"dn't proceed to tell in what respects it was ended. Whatever his state- 
ments, it has gone to record that the fulness of the law ended in Jesus Christ, 
and now you turn around and say the law is in force yet. That is, in ?( 
limited sense. Your side of the question will be a contradiction to be read 
in this country. 

When dM the Christian dispensation begin? He says the personal reign 
of Christ was fulfilled at the cross. Did I garble him in that? I quoted him 
exactly, that the Christian dispensation began at the cross of Jesus Christ. 
He knows it began on Pentecost as well as I know it and as well as you know 
it. He is quibbl'ng. So much for the garbling. 

Christ baptized; John 4:1. Did you notice what he said about that? He 
turned away; yet that 4th chapter of John, 1st and 2nd verses, plainly says 
that Christ baptized not, but his disciples, and did you notice h'm tvrn the 
talk? He said the disciples baptized by authority. I believe that. Christ 
did not baptize any one with his own hands, but He did baptize by His 
authority with His disciples. The question, did Christ baptize any one with 

179 



His own hands? If so, He was a Baptist, and if not, He wasn't a Baptist. 
I don't read of but one Bapt'st in the New Testament and that was John, 
and he didn't take the appellation Baptist until he began to baptize in the 
Jordan. Read Luke's record; he is simply c'ean, plain John. The angel 
said his name should be John; his father said his name should be John, and 
his mother said his name should be John, and takes up his ministry baptizing 
in the Jordan; and he goes as John the Baptist, and you have accepted the 
definition; we are a Baptist when we baptize. Therefore, a sister isn't a 
Baptist and it is a misrepresentation unless she administers baptism. You 
cannot get away from it. 

He says he don't remember whether I was at the Hutson and Laslie 
debate or not. I was there eight days. That was a ten days' discussion. I 
got tired of it. Why? Too much rehashing on both sides. The people of 
that community were sirrply worn out and trampled under foot. If you want 
a ten days' discussion, hold four days here and four days there and four days 
somewhere else and make it twelve days; but to hold a twelve-day debate 
in one community is an outrage. 

Then he proceeds to introduce a lot of scriptures on faith, twenty-five 
or thirty scriptures; twenty-five or thirty passages, on the question of faith. 
I thought we had agreed on that. You had stated that you believed that 
faith was the ground of salvat'on. You teach that faith alone will save. 

(Elder Laslie.) We don't do it. 

(Brother Willis.) What do you mean by quoting these scriptures? I 
believe a perfect faith will produce salvation, but faith alone won't produce 
anything. The whole man is converted; the whole man is brought in sub- 
jection to the will of God. The Bible teaches it. Paul says, "But I keep 
under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when 
I have preached to others, I myse'f should be a castaway." The whole man 
is brought into subjection of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. He said the 
elders are the ministers of the church. Have you a plurality of elders in 
your churches; a plurality of elders in the local churches? Do you have 
three ministers in a local Baptist church? In this nicknamed church he has 
three elders, ministers in one local church. 

(Elder Laslie.) We have lots of them. 

(Brother Willis.) You know you have one elder for a multiplicity of 
churches, and not a multiplicity or plurality of elders for one local church. 

Were our sisters Baptists? Yes, he holds on to that; it don't make any 
difference whether they administer baptism or not. He accepted it; a 
Baptist was one who baptizes, and I said a while ago there wasn't but one 
Baptist in the New Testament and that was John, and I want to say to you 
there is no trace in the Bible of the General Baptist church and he knows it. 
But his proposition demands that he point it out and he can't do it. I found 
it on the outside. 

Talk about summing up. He didn't tell anything about singing. Elder, 
your memory is bad. I had a chart before this audience for at least a day 

180 






where it gives the law of worship, nairely, meeting-, singing, reading, praying, 
contributions. Yes, sir, I have had a chart before this people for at least a 
whole day, and now he says I didn't say anything about singing. We are 
told when to sing and how to sing and where to sing, in the New Testament, 
and that is the only music there is authorized in the New Testament Scrip- 
tures. I find instrumental music in the old Jewish church, and "who put it 
there ? David did it, and the Lord condemned him in Amos 6. 

(Elder Laslie.) You refer to the New Testament. 

(Brother Will's.) No, it isn't. You quoted David. 

(Elder Laslie.) I didn't quote him. Introduce anything you want. God 
knows you need it. 

(Brother Willis.) And he talked about keeping the Holy Sabbath day. 
What do you mean by that? Do you mean Saturday? You know the o~d 
Jewish Sabbath was Saturday. It isn't called Sabbath in the New Testa- 
ment. You go up against the Seventh Day Adventists and talk about Satur- 
day being the seventh day and see where you get. The Jews keep the seventh 
day of the week because it was the fourth command in the law and, secondly, 
on that day they were delivered from bondage. We are commanded to keep 
the first day of the week; first, because Jesus Christ rose from the dead 
on that day. Jesus Christ rose from earth on that day. The mother church 
of Jesus Christ was built in the City of Jerusalem on that day, and the 
disciples met that day and brake bread. Acts 27. That is why be keep the 
Lord's day and not the old Jewish Sabbath. I think the elder has learned a 
few things in this discussion, as well as other folks. 

Now just a word or two on Sunday school. I want to say to you there 
is no authority in the Scriptures for a modern Sunday school. You take the 
history of that institution and you will find it existed in England where 
your Baptist church existed. We are commanded to meet on the Lord's day 
and teach the Word of God to both the old and the young, but you do not 
fnd any model Sunday school in the Bible; no, sir. No, indeed. It is only 
a part of the General Baptist church. 

Now I want to say in conclusion to these General Baptist people, I 
want to say to you I haven't the least ill-will towards any one, not any of 
you; notwithstanding we differ, and we originally differed on many things. 
I love you. I am interested in your eternal welfare; I want you saved when 
you leave this world. But I want to say to you that obed'ence to the law of 
the Spirit of Life will save you. I want to say to you that salvation is in 
the Church of Jesus Christ, in the body of Jesus Christ. Paul declares in 
the 2nd Cor. 1:20, all the promises are in Christ, who hath delivered us from 
the power of darkness, to be a citizen of the kingdom of God's dear Son. 
Obey the gospel; become a member of the church. We read of it in the New 
Testament. We hear the name of Christ collectively and individually and 
you have an assurance of heaven. You are standing on safe ground and your 
feet are planted on the eternal Rock of Ages. It will stand the criticism 
and the frown of skepticism and infidels. It w'll stand in the eternal day, 

181 



bless the name of God. The reason I am in defense of this Divine institution 
that is planted among the children of men and watered with the dews of 
heaven, I know this is my only hope, and that is the reason I am here defend- 
ing it. Aside from all creeds or human instruments, I know in order to be 
saved I must predicate my faith and hope on this sure foundation in order 
to be saved. I am here in defense of the one church, in defense of the one 
head, in defense of the one Book, the infallible Book, in defense of one 
appellation, the Church of God, in defense of the one appellation, Christian 
Disciple, and by complying with these requirements of God we fit ourselves 
for the duties of life and joy of the glory world. May God help us, old and 
young, to search the Word of God carefully and prayerfully and learn His 
will and learn more about our great Creator, and learn more about Jesus*, 
His Son, and learn more about the love of Christ concerning us, and learn 
more about our origin and our duty and our eternal destiny. May God help 
us to learn the new living way, and may the Lord God help us to walk in 
His ways, is my prayer in Jesus' name. 

Now then in closing I want to call attention to a piece of poetry that 
very beautifully portrays the present condition of the church the gentleman 
has affirmed in this proposition and is declaring itself to have a nickname 
and has given it up as being in the lids of the Bible. He surrendered his 
proposition, and this audience knows it. I want to read this poetry slowly 
and I want the stenographer to get it. I want it to go into the record, and 
this shall close my work in defense of truth and righteousness, in defense 
of the New Testament, in defense of the hope that is an anchor of the soul 
both sure and steadfast. 

I would rather be a Christian, and with the Christians stand, 
Than join the General Baptist party and wear its party brand. 
For sure the Blessed Savior, and Peter, James and Paul, 
By such outlandish title did not God's people call. 

You pass the Holy Master, who is the church's head, 
And name for John the Baptist, who is still among the dead. 
For John was only human, despite your Baptist views, 
And said he wasn't worthy to wear his Master's shoes. 

Indeed he wasn't worthy, with all your Baptist pride, 

To place his name or label upon the Master's bride. 

Christ said in Cesarea, "I will build upon this rock," 
And called His people Christians down there at Antioch. 

But never called them Baptists, and by no hook or crook 

Can you find such people in all God's Holy Book. 

You don't trust in the water, and think that you are right, 
And better than other people you nickname "Campbellite." 

182 



You make quite high pretensions; much higher than you "oughter," 
By folks who get their title directly from the water. 

You won't eat with Wesleyans, with Luther or the Pope, 
Although you say they are Christians and have a Christian's hope. 

You set a higher table, and by yourselves you keep, 

And divide God's elect children, and separate the sheep. 
For these and other reasons I would not like to be 
A poor sectarian Baptist, but a Christian true and free. 

And especially for this reason God left you in the lurch. 

He founded no such people and started no such church. 

This closes the joint discussions. 



i8a 



^v 



STATE OF KENTUCKY,] 
County of Daviess. ( c ' 



I, Marvin Miller, official stenographer for the Daviess Circuit Court, do 
certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of 364 typewritten pages, is 
a report of the joint debate between T. D. Willis and T. A. H. Laslie at 
Cherry Grove church in Muhlenberg county, Kentucky, September 13th, 14th, 
15th and 16th, 1921, on the proposition, "The Churches of Christ, one of 
which I, T. D. Willis, am a member, are identical in origin, name, doctrine 
and practice with the churches of the New Testament." 

Affirmative, T. D. Willis; 
Negative, T. A. H. Laslie. 



Also the proposition, "The General Baptist churches, one of which I, 
T. A. H. Laslie, am a member, are identical in origin, name, doctrine and 
practice with the churches of the New Testament." 

Affirmative, T. A. H. Laslie; 
Negative, T. D. Willis. 



I further certify that the proceedings of said debate were written by me 
in shorthand, and by me transcribed, and that the above is a full and com- 
plete copy of same as shown by my notes taken on said debate. 

MARVIN MILLER, 

Official Court Reporter, Daviess Circuit Court. 



